Musings over lunch:
I'm struck more and more by the fact that RDA thinks very differently from the way in which MARC works. RDA feels like a huge bubble of related information, which you can approach from almost any angle and navigate around (very 3D), whilst MARC works in a much more rigid, linear, prescribed fashion.
A bit like being given a recipe that allows you to bake every type of cake under the sun, with options for fancy icing and jam, then finding you have only a war-time ration to work with. (Maybe a tad extreme there, but best I can come up with!).
We're trying to force RDA concepts into the strait-jacket that is MARC, because there's currently no other choice. I really like ideas such as "there may be other types of relationship between the specific volumes of a series that you need to bring out", but MARC is too linear to properly capture this. I want to link to everything possible in order to show the user how much related stuff there is out there, but then I remember I have to use MARC to encode it all and most of my ideas have to go.
Anyway, just a thought.
Royal Academy of Dance
36 Battersea Square
0207 326 8032
>>> "Danskin, Alan" <[log in to unmask]> 10/25/2012 12:04 pm >>>
In RDA you can transcribe what is actually on the source in the series
statement. In RDA you can even use sources outside the resource see
However you can make a relationship to the series as a whole. In MARC
this is what we do when we use an 830. In RDA this is a whole-part
relationship and it obviates the need to relate directly to other membrs
of the series.
Of course, there may be other types of relationship between the specific
volumes of a series that you need to bring out, for example if there was
a sequential relationship between the resource being catalogued and
another volume in the series, but not reflected by the series numbering.
These relationsbips can be mande using authorised access points, if you
have enough information, or using structured or unstructured