“contained in (expression)” doesn’t work either because it represents an expression-to-expression relationship, not an expression-to-work relationship. “Contained in (expression): Loeb classical library” is not correct because “Loeb classical library” is not an expression, it’s a work (an aggregate work, to be sure).

 

From Richard’s original message, this is “a case where RDA does not reflect the real world.” RDA needs to acknowledge the existence of expression-to-work relationships, and I’m pretty sure it will.

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R. Snow, 1842.

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 12:33 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "In series": using J.2.4 Whole-Part Work Relationships

 

I think there are two different kinds of “series” involved here.  On the one hand, we have something like The Two Towers and The Lord of the Rings.  Clearly, every expression of The Two Towers is a part of the series The Lord of the Rings.  This is a Work to Work relationship.  On the other hand, we have the Loeb Classical Library.  The titles in this series were originally published independently.  Only one specific expression of each title is in the Loeb Classical Library (it is, indeed, the distinguishing feature of those expressions).  This is an Expression to Expression relationship.

 

I think Gene is right.  For the relationship between a specific title and the Loeb Classical Library, you would use the “contained in (expression)” relationship.  For works which are inherently a part of a series, you can use the “in series (work)” relationship.  Note that this relationship is a subcategory of “contained in (work)”, so it is similar to the expression relationship—just a little more specific.

 

                                                                           Steve McDonald

                                                                           [log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gene Fieg
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 2:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] "In series": using J.2.4 Whole-Part Work Relationships

 

You may be right.  But then somehow, the entries I have saved as examples in nos. 13, 17 would need to be changed.

 

I found this in J3...

 

Whole-Part Expression Relationships

 

contained in (expression) An expression of a larger work of which the expression is a discrete component. Reciprocal relationship: container of (expression)

 

container of (expression) An expression of a work that is a discrete component of a larger expression. Reciprocal relationship: contained in (expression

 

Would we use Contained in:  ?

 

Gene

 

On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 8:06 AM, Lammert, Richard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

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 expression 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

 

and

 

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