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

Concordia Theological Seminary