I'm not a fan of the repetition either, but RDA often requires /transcription/
> I'm less in favor of publisherStatement to transcribe and then repeat the
> same information in somewhat of a jumbled fashion with repeating
> publishedAt/By/On. If there's the possibility of multiples, as demonstrated,
> then the information shouldn't get lost as to which place is associated with
> which organization, IMO.
I also have fantasies that - down the road apiece - a cataloger would be able to type in a publicationStatement into a text field, at which point background programming would perform some kind of entity recognition and populate the proposed fields without the cataloger having to do double the work. That doesn't get around the inherent duplication of data, but it mitigates the effort that produced it.
> Here the structure isn't imposed just for the sake of having structure, it's toThis seems complicated (more so, in fact) and returns us, more or less, back to where it is now, which is to say a mostly non-reusable resource. Also, those two wasAssociatedWiths would have to remain in the order in which they appeared on the source. You can appreciate the headache that introduces in RDF-land.
> model the publication event and its participants.
I liked your earlier question to Karen about what it all meant. Are the publishers (in two different locations) working together to produce the /same thing/ or are we looking at two manifestations, each published by one of the indicated publishers in that particular year. The latter would make things a lot easier, as you noted, and it is how we've interpreted that construct, but the documentation is vague on this point.