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


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