LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST Archives

PCCLIST Archives


PCCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST Home

PCCLIST  March 2016

PCCLIST March 2016

Subject:

FRBR-LRM: Relationships

From:

Heidrun Wiesenmüller <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 26 Mar 2016 14:02:35 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (55 lines)

There are 34 relationships defined in LRM. This is not a closed list: 
"Any additional relationships needed by a particular implementation can 
be defined as sub-types of the additional relationships defined in the 
model, or of the top relationship." (p. 45)

However, I am bewildered by what seems to me a discrepancy between very 
general and very specific relationships in the list. The selection of 
relationships defined seems to me somewhat arbitrary and not really well 
balanced. I would prefer to have more relationships on a middle level of 
the hierarchy.

For example, sometimes we find very detailed relationships. Look at 
LRM-R26 (Manifestation - has reproduction/is reproduction of - 
Manifestation) and LRM-R27 (Manifestation - has alternate/has alternate 
- Manifestation). If we compare this to RDA, we find the element 
"Related Manifestation" (RDA 27.1) on the highest level. Then there is, 
in appendix J.4.2, "equivalent (manifestation)" with several sub-terms, 
among them "reproduced as (manifestation)/reproduction of 
(manifestation)" and  "also issued as". So, the RDA equivalents of 
LRM-R26 and R27 are on the third (!) hierarchical level. However, there 
is no general relationship defined between two manifestations in LRM 
(something like: Manifestation - is associated with/is associated with - 
Manifestation". I think this is rather amazing for a model which claims: 
"In the FRBR-LRM model, the relationships are declared in a general, 
abstract way and thus enable implementers to include additional details 
in a consistent and coherent way by introducing additional types." (p. 43).

Another example are the relationships between two agents. Again we find 
some rather specific relationships (e.g. Agent - is member of/has member 
- Collective Agent), but no general relationship between two agents. 
Therefore, if we want to express that person A is married to person B by 
using the relationships defined in LRM, we need to fall back on the most 
general relationship, FRBR-LRM1 (Res - is associated with/is associated 
with - Res), as there is no specific relationship which could be used. I 
would much prefer LRM to have, for every entity, a general relationship 
between two entities of the same kind, e.g. "Work to Work", "Expression 
to Expression", "Agent to Agent" a.s.o.

A second point which struck me when looking through the list of 
relationships: Why is there no whole/part relationship for Item? 
Whole/part relationships are defined for 7 out of 11 entities. I do 
understand that a whole/part relationship doesn't make much sense for 
Person, which in turn means that it cannot be defined for the 
hiearchically superior entities Agent and Res. But I am at a loss why it 
wasn't defined for Item.

Heidrun

-- 
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmueller M.A.
Stuttgart Media University
Nobelstrasse 10, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager