Hat-tip to all! Very interesting thread to follow.

 

Consider Lucretius’s De rerum natura:

100 0# Lucretius. $ De rerum natura

And consider the following series, among others, in which it is contained:

130 #0 Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis

130 #0 Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana

130 #0 Collection des universités de France

 

If we were to apply the rigid RDA J.2.4 (Whole-Part Work Relationships), would we not end up with something like this, seemingly logical but odd?

100 0# Lucretius. $ De rerum natura

530 #0 $w r $i In series: $ Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis

530 #0 $w r $i In series: $ Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana

530 #0 $w r $i In series: $ Collection des universités de France

 

In truth, what we have in each series is a distinct edition (version or expression): by C. Bailey (Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis), H. Diels (Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis, 1923), J. Martin (Scriptorum classicorum bibliotheca Oxoniensis, 1934), A. Ernout (Collection des universités de France), etc.  If DRN is to be seen as “a discrete component” of a larger work (series), which the above series clearly lay claim of, then, something else needs to be done in order to differentiate them. I greatly appreciate and admire UPB’s tremendous contribution to NAF in this field. Also, see UPB’s Name/Title authority records for Greek and Latin authors in general.

 

In contrast, the traditional AACRII practice, namely, using Name/Tile both as work and as expression, is becoming a serious problem, even though the practice relentlessly persists. Under RDA, isn’t each entity (be it work or expression, person, family, corporate body) supposed to have an identifier (“a character string uniquely associated with […], or with a surrogate such as an authority record”)? 

 

In short, I strongly agree with Bob that “RDA needs to acknowledge the existence of expression-to-work relationships.

 

Yang

Classics cataloger

Western Languages Cataloging Team

Princeton University Library

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 4:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Expression-Work relationships

 

I’m not sure I agree there, Adam.  Under current PCC policy, the AAP for the Work often serves as the AAP for the Expression as well.  In the editorial cases you cite, I think the AAP is supposed to be interpreted as the Expression, not the Work.

 

But Robert does have a point that the Loeb Classical Library case could be considered an Expression to Work relationship.  I had actually considered that before I made my previous post, but didn’t want to muddy the waters further.  I do hope the Working Group comes up with a good solution.

 

                                                                           Steve McDonald

                                                                           [log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 3:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] Expression-Work relationships

 

Bob Maxwell wrote: 

 

“This is an expression to work relationship. At the moment, RDA doesn’t recognize any expression to work relationship (it’s not just confined to series) between different works. And yet such relationships do exist and are important. The RSC Relationship Designators Working Group is proposing to remedy this. We’ll see how that plays at the RSC meeting next month, and how it works out in terms later RDA revisions.”

 

Here’s another common situation illustrating work to expression relationships:

 

130 _0  223B casebook series

380        Series (Publications) ǂ2 lcsh

500 1_ ǂi Editor: ǂa Peschel, Bill ǂw r

 

100 1_  Arendt, Erich. ǂt Poems. ǂk Selections

400 1_  Arendt, Erich. ǂt Trug doch die Nacht den Albatros

500 1_ ǂi Editor: ǂa Albers, B. ǂq (Bernhard) ǂw r

 

130 _0 Catálogo Histórias mestiças

380       Exhibition catalogs ǂ2 lcsh

381       Pedrosa and Schwarcz

430 _0 Histórias mestiças

500 1_ ǂi Editor: ǂa Schwarcz, Lilia Moritz ǂw r

500 1_ ǂi Editor: ǂa Pedrosa, Adriano ǂw r

 

130 _0 China-Europe relations (Shambaugh, Sandschneider, and Zhou)

381       Shambaugh, Sandschneider, and Zhou

381       Routledge (Firm) ǂ2 naf

500 1_ ǂi Editor: ǂa Shambaugh, David L. ǂw r

500 1_ ǂi Editor: ǂa Sandschneider, Eberhard, ǂd 1955- ǂw r

500 1_ ǂi Editor: ǂa Zhou, Hong, ǂd 1952- ǂw r

 

130 _0 Dangerous visions

380       Short stories ǂa Science fiction ǂ2 lcgft

381       Ellison

500 1_ ǂi Editor: ǂa Ellison, Harlan ǂw r

 

130 _0 Dortmunder Schriften zur Musikpädagogik und Musikwissenschaft

380       Series (Publications) ǂa Monographic series ǂ2 lcsh

500 1_ ǂi Editor: ǂa Erlach, Thomas, ǂd 1970- ǂw r

500 1_ ǂi Editor: ǂa Oehl, Klaus, ǂd 1970- ǂw r

 

130 _0 Great horror stories (Bernard)

380       Short stories ǂa Horror fiction ǂ2 lcgft

381       Bernard

500 1_ ǂi Editor: ǂa Bernard, Christine, ǂd 1926-2000 ǂw r

 

Each of these examples has a work access point in the 1XX and a person associated with expressions in the 5XX.

 

Adam Schiff

University of Washington Libraries

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 11:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "In series": using J.2.4 Whole-Part Work Relationships

 

Richard,

 

You are correct, RDA only recognizes the “in series” relationship as a whole-part work level relationship. This works for most series. However, it seems evident that certain series have a much stronger relationship to the expression of a work. Loeb Classical Library is one example. People think of “the Loeb edition of the Aeneid” or “the Loeb translation of Aeneid” or whatever classical author or work. It is not helpful to them to link the series “Loeb classical library” to the work “Virgil. Aeneis”, which simply conveys that somewhere in the corpus of expressions of the Aeneid one of the expressions is in the Loeb classical library. It serves the user in this case to link the actual expression to the series, and it is, in fact, not really helpful to link the work to the series.

 

This is an expression to work relationship. At the moment, RDA doesn’t recognize any expression to work relationship (it’s not just confined to series) between different works. And yet such relationships do exist and are important. The RSC Relationship Designators Working Group is proposing to remedy this. We’ll see how that plays at the RSC meeting next month, and how it works out in terms later RDA revisions.

 

Meanwhile, as a classicist it is my opinion that certain translations and editions of classical authors are so closely tied to specific series that it is important to record the relationship; this is probably true of other types of series as well.

 

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 Lammert, Richard
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 9:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: "In series": using J.2.4 Whole-Part Work Relationships

 

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