(In the case of the oft-cited Mail carrier example, this would be an “aggregate of parallel expressions”)

 

Yes, I agree. This makes good sense to me, focusing on “manifestation of expression” itself rather than having to deal with 2 sets of entities at the same time in a single bib. In the Mail carrier example, the so-called work (creation, ergon, or that which stands behind its textual realization) is already embodied in the Spanish expression itself ($a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l Spanish). In other words, the Spanish expression is a direct emanation of the work Mail carrier, and not a derivative of the original English text.

 

Personally I am inclined to think that a work-level authority record’s rightful place in a bib, strictly speaking, is only in 6XX fields and can only be used as a subject. Everything we catalog, with pieces in hand that is (be it textual/audio/visual), is nothing but a manifestation of expression which has its own set of attributes different from that of its source—the conceptualized entity of work. Adam was right that, if we wanted to do it, we would have to do it consistently. Even the very first publication of Macken’s Mail carrier would have to treated in a bibliographic record like this:  

 

100 1   $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier.

240 10 $a Mail carrier. $l English

245 10 $a Mail carrier / $c JoAnn Early Macken.

 

There would be two N/T authorities behind this bib, one for work and the other for the English expression. The advantage of doing so—having both sets of attributes (and relationships) recorded separately, each in its own right. Returning to a point I was trying to make earlier with regard to “work” being used only in 6XX. Even in 6XX, one would have to be careful, when attaching text-related subdivisions (e.g., Criticism, Textual, Concordance, etc.). Consider the following:

 

600 00 $a Homer. $t Odyssey. $x Criticism, Textual.

600 00 $a Homer. $t Odyssey. $l Greek $x Criticism, Textual.

 

600 00 $a Homer $v Concordance.

600 00 $a Homer. $t Works $v Concordance.

600 00 $a Homer. $t Works. $l Greek $v Concordance.

 

My point is, if “600 00 $a Homer. $t Odyssey” points to both a work and an expression (using the same work-level AR) …, then, Houston, we have a problem.

 

Yang

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Holden, Christopher
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 3:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Container of/Contained in

 

This discussion got me thinking - the “container of/contained in” relationships as currently stand in RDA perform double duty. They map whole/part relationships of works and expressions, but are often also used in bib records to describe aggregates.

 

This made sense under FRBR, in which aggregates were discussed using the whole/part relationship. But aggregates in LRM are explicitly not whole/part relationships of works, but instead a manifestation embodying multiple distinct expressions. (In the case of the oft-cited Mail carrier example, this would be an “aggregate of parallel expressions”). I suspect that RDA will eventually have two sets of relationship designators – one to convey the whole/part relationship between works and expressions, and one to convey the relationship between an aggregate manifestation and the expressions that it embodies.

 

In a way, the RDA-to-MARC mappings already point in this direction. For example, the “contained in” relationship is mapped to the 700, 710, 711, 730, and 773 - the first four fields apply to a whole/part relationship between works/expressions, whereas the 773 would be used to identify a manifestation and doesn’t really make sense as a field that represents a work or expression.

 

(These are my own personal opinions and not those of the Library of Congress)

 

Chris

====

Chris Holden

Cataloger

Bibliographic Access Section

Music Division

7-7874

[log in to unmask]

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Hearn
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 2:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Container of/Contained in

 

 

The "Container of" relationships in RDA are limiting in both directions. That means that in the case cited:

 

700 12 $i Container of (work): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier.

700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l Spanish

 

the first 700 is referencing a work contained in a work, and the second is referencing an expression contained in an expression.

 

What is the work AAP and what is the expression AAP by which the subject of each of these 700 statements would be represented in RDF?

 

(The LC-PCC PS also gives us:

 

100 1  $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953-

245 10 $a Mail carrier = $b El cartero / $c JoAnn Early Macken.

 

if that helps.)

 

Stephen

 

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

This is one case where in my opinion it would be best not to mix WEMI levels in authority records.

 

However, since bib records may contain aspects of all WEMI levels, recording “container” relationships to different WEMI entities (i.e., work or expression) is probably unavoidable, especially if you do something like the example of LC practice in LC/PCC PS 6.27.3:

 

700 12 $i Container of (work): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier.

700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l Spanish

 

In spite of what some have speculated recently on this list, the authorized access point in the first 700 field above is, and is only, an authorized access point for a work. It is not also an authorized access point for an expression (the English expression or any other expression). RDA does not recognize “hybrid” authorized access points that can represent different entities (e.g. both a work and an expression).

 

So in this case, if you’re going to follow LC practice for this bilingual text, you have no choice but to give one relationship between the resource described in the bib record and a work, and another relationship between the resource described in the bib record and an expression.

 

Here are some examples of “container of (work)” and “container of (expression)” in current authority records:

 

Authority record representing a work:

 

1001 Tolkien, J. R. R. ǂq (John Ronald Reuel), ǂd 1892-1973. ǂt Lord of the rings

370  ǂg Great Britain ǂ2 naf

380  Novels ǂa Fantasy fiction ǂa Epic fiction ǂ2 lcgft

380  Trilogy

4001 Tolkien, J. R. R. ǂq (John Ronald Reuel), ǂd 1892-1973. ǂt Magic ring

5001 ǂi Container of (work): ǂa Tolkien, J. R. R. ǂq (John Ronald Reuel), ǂd 1892-1973. ǂt Fellowship of the ring ǂw r

5001 ǂi Container of (work): ǂa Tolkien, J. R. R. ǂq (John Ronald Reuel), ǂd 1892-1973. ǂt Two towers ǂw r

5001 ǂi Container of (work): ǂa Tolkien, J. R. R. ǂq (John Ronald Reuel), ǂd 1892-1973. ǂt Return of the king ǂw r

5001 ǂi Sequel to: ǂa Tolkien, J. R. R. ǂq (John Ronald Reuel), ǂd 1892-1973. ǂt Hobbit ǂw r

 

Authority record representing an expression:

 

1001 Asimov, Isaac, ǂd 1920-1992. ǂt Bicentennial man and other stories. ǂl Spanish ǂs (Bofill)

377  spa

381  Bofill

4001 Asimov, Isaac, ǂd 1920-1992. ǂt Hombre de bicentenario (Anthology)

5001 ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Asimov, Isaac, ǂd 1920-1992. ǂt Prime of life. ǂl Spanish ǂs (Bofill) ǂw r

5001 ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Asimov, Isaac, ǂd 1920-1992. ǂt Feminine intuition. ǂl Spanish ǂs (Bofill) ǂw r

5001 ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Asimov, Isaac, ǂd 1920-1992. ǂt Waterclap. ǂl Spanish ǂs (Bofill) ǂw r

5001 ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Asimov, Isaac, ǂd 1920-1992. ǂt That Thou art mindful of him. ǂl Spanish ǂs (Bofill) ǂw r

5001 ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Asimov, Isaac, ǂd 1920-1992. ǂt Stranger in Paradise. ǂl Spanish ǂs (Bofill) ǂw r

5001 ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Asimov, Isaac, ǂd 1920-1992. ǂt Life and times of Multivac. ǂl Spanish ǂs (Bofill) ǂw r

5001 ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Asimov, Isaac, ǂd 1920-1992. ǂt Winnowing. ǂl Spanish ǂs (Bofill) ǂw r

5001 ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Asimov, Isaac, ǂd 1920-1992. ǂt Bicentennial man. ǂl Spanish ǂs (Bofill) ǂw r

5001 ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Asimov, Isaac, ǂd 1920-1992. ǂt Marching in. ǂl Spanish ǂs (Bofill) ǂw r

5001 ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Asimov, Isaac, ǂd 1920-1992. ǂt Old-fashioned. ǂl Spanish ǂs (Bofill) ǂw r

5001 ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Asimov, Isaac, ǂd 1920-1992. ǂt Tercentenary incident. ǂl Spanish ǂs (Bofill) ǂw r

5001 ǂi Container of (expression): ǂa Asimov, Isaac, ǂd 1920-1992. ǂt Birth of a notion. ǂl Spanish ǂs (Bofill) ǂw r

5001 ǂi Translator: ǂa Bofill, Mireia ǂw r

 

Bob

 

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

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 10:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Container of/Contained in

 

About 10 days ago,  Adam sent us some really good examples “showing multiple creators OR one creator with different role roles” (March 20, [PCCLIST] Question about use of RDA relators in authority records).  It’s great to see how such designators are used there to clarify relationships (thus, primed for linked data). In the same spirit, now I need some collective wisdom and advice on how relationship designators “Container of (work)” and “Contained in (work)” should be used in authority records as well in bibliographic records. Here are my questions:

 

1) Current predominant use of designators in AAPs: 7XX X2 $i Container of (…) in bibs (but rarely 7XX Xb  $i Contained in (…)). Where could the reciprocal relationship be recorded? 774?    

2) When we see a single or multiple instances of Container of (expression) in 7XX, what is the nature of the “container” itself, expression or work?  

3) Mixed designators in a single bib ($i Container of (work) + $i Container of (expression), etc.), which, conceptually speaking, point to different containers. Or, is the term “container” used loosely here to refer to “the piece in hand” (could  it be, really?!).

4) In authority records, such relationships (work to work, expression to expression) can be recorded clearly with whole/part designators (J.2.4, J.3.4), without mixing WEMI entities and causing confusion. What is PCC’s best practice? Examples?

 

Best regards,

 

Yang

PUL

 



 

--

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Data Management & Access, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

160 Wilson Library

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Ph: 612-625-2328

Fx: 612-625-3428

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242