When Barbara Tillett & I worked out this serial publication diagram back
Our strategy was to address difficult resource description scenarios
first, and then make provisions for handling more common and less complex
arrangements. The strategy led us to our thinking in terms of "levels of
description," with relationships defined between levels.
If the diagramıs narrative engages your interest, note in the Dropboxed
tutorial that the FRBR Report did provide for the ³container-like²
descriptive elements (they contain links to other resource descriptions
rather than a given resource's attributes) exploited in the diagram and in
our resource description theory. The significance of this for serial
publications is readily observable in the diagrammatic representation.
PS: For the implementation-minded, consider that each box ³possesses" a
unique ID, which allows a WEMI-level description to sit on either side of
a relationship. In less complex scenarios where the WEMI boxes are
*touching,* one would create and manage a contiguous text block of all the
WEMI descriptions - as long as each WEMI level in the block possessed its
own identifier. Defining and retaining WEMI identifiers in a contiguous
text block serves as **insurance** against the day that the simpler
resource description must be expanded to accommodate additional items
produced in new editions and languages. The simple descriptions can
blossom into complex ones over time.
I suppose that it would be possible to generate a unique ID for a WEMI
part as the situation demanded, but that presupposes that links from
elsewhere to a specific WEMI description level will not/should not occur.
Ronald J, Murray
Digital Conversion Specialist
Preservation Reformatting Division
Library of Congress
Washington DC 20540
email: [log in to unmask]
phone: (202) 707-9610
On 5/26/15, 10:14 PM, "Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 May 2015, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>> 4) The ISSN of a series is an identifier of the series, not an
>>> of a manifestation in which the ISSN appears. 0277-786X is the ISSN of
>>> SPIE proceedings series: it does not identify volume 2357 of the
>> Yes, and it makes sense that the information about the series would
>> present in the description of the manifestation, but in the description
>> the series. In past cataloging practice, this information was included
>> record for the manifestation because linking between entities was not
>> possible (e.g. in the card catalog), and the series data was there for
>> person with a brain to follow up on.
>> Note that the ISSN would rarely be in a transcribed series statement,
>> is included in the description of the manifestation. Any transcribed
>> information is about the manifestation, and should not be considered
>> information. (e.g. 490 vs. 830) (Transcribed data is text that is
>> be displayed to the human reader.)
>ISSN is always recorded in the series statement (490 $x) when it is
>present on a manifestation. If the ISSN on the manifestation is
>incorrect or inappropriate, it is still transcribed as found. This is
>not a change from AACR2 practice.
>RDA 126.96.36.199 Recording the ISSN of a Series
>Transcribe the ISSN (International Standard Serial Number) of a series as
>it appears on the source of information.
>RDA 188.8.131.52 Recording the ISSN of a Subseries
>Transcribe the ISSN (International Standard Serial Number) of a subseries
>as it appears on the source of information.
>ISSN is not a core element in RDA manifestation descriptions, but it is a
>core element for the PCC.
>It's important not to confuse what's recorded as manifestation
>information (series statement elements specified in chapter 2 of RDA and
>recorded in 490 in MARC) and whole-part work relationships that are
>recorded as authorized series access points in MARC 8XX and are covered
>by other chapters in RDA (i.e., chapter 6 for a series as a work,
>including ISSN as a work identifier, and chapters 24-26 for
>relationships, including 24.6 for numbering of part). Note that
>Numbering within Series (2.12.9) is NOT the same element as Numbering of
>Part (24.6). One is a manifestation attribute, the other is used as the
>name of the part of a work when a relationship is being recorded for that
>part. The difficultly with all this is that in many cases, a particular
>work was only published once, will only ever be published once, so if the
>one and only manifestation of that work happened to be in a series,
>it does make sense to treat the work as being in a particular series
>(i.e., a work to work whole-part relationship). But as Joe Kiegel
>demonstrated with his Hamlet example, as soon as different manifestations
>of an expression of a work appear in different series, the relationship
>really isn't work to work anymore, it's manifestation to work.
>Adam L. Schiff
>University of Washington Libraries
>Seattle, WA 98195-2900
>(206) 685-8782 fax
>[log in to unmask]