RDA J.2.4, "Whole-Part Work Relationships," provides for the "in series"
relationship. This is in section J.2, "Relationship Designators for Related
*Works*" (my emphasis). Thus, a *work* can be part of a series, but an
*cannot be (in fact, RDA provides for no relationships that I can see
relating expressions to works--unless I have missed something, which is
entirely possible).

This becomes important in the real world in the way in which series are
commonly viewed. Although the relationship as spelled out in RDA works in
many cases, in some cases, it contradicts the way in which people think of
series relationships.

Take, as an example, a Latin work by the author "Sine nomine," whose work
"Opus magnum" is published in the Loeb classical library. Reading RDA
closely (or rigidly, if you prefer), the following relationship is possible:
100 0  Sine nomine. $t Opus magnum
530  0 $i In series: $a Loeb classical library $w r

However, both of the following authorities make a relationship between
an *expression
*and a *work*, and therefore these relationships cannot be made according
to J.2.4:

100 0  Sine nomine. $t Opus magnum. $l Latin $s (Loeb classical library)
530  0 $i In series: $a Loeb classical library $w r


100 0  Sine nomine. $t Opus magnum. $l English $s (Brown)
530  0 $i In series: $a Loeb classical library $w r

Is this close (or rigid) reading of RDA correct, or is there some provision
I have missed for relating expressions to works? Or is this a case where
RDA does not reflect the real world?

Richard Lammert

Rev. Richard A. Lammert           e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Technical Services Librarian       mail: 6600 N. Clinton St.
Systems Librarian                     Fort Wayne, IN 46825-4916
Kroemer Library                         phone: 260-452-3148
Concordia Theological Seminary