Print

Print


I am sorry if my comment drags this discussion up again, but I wanted to point out that the RDA MARC example records in the RDA toolkit use the phrase “container of (work)” when dealing with works manifested in manifestations. The first example I came across is for an audio CD which contains multiple tracks, each of which is its own work, each track in the MARC example having a 700 12 $i Container of (work): $a…

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matthew C. Haugen
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 1:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Container of/Contained in

 

As I understand it, the container of/contained in relationships can be used to describe part/whole relationships between entities at the *same* WEMI type only.  A work can contain other works; an expression can contain other expressions, and so on.  Likewise for the the other relationships in appendix J.

But manifestations do not contain expressions; they manifest them.  And expressions do not contain works, they express them. These primary relationships from Work to Expression to Manifestation to Item, and Work-to-subject relationships, are currently the only relationships that can go across WEMI types.

We could instead use RDA Chapter 17 for these primary relationships.

 

For example, in a description of the manifestation Mail carrier = El cartero, we could record:

$i Work manifested: $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier.
$i Expression manifested: $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l English.
$i Expression manifested:  $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l Spanish.

Except that the LC/PCC PSs in Chapter 17 prevent us from applying chapter 17 the current implementation scenario (i.e. MARC) and instead directs us to Chapters 25 and 26 for related works and expressions.

 

Matt

 

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Stephen Hearn <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I agree with Bob Maxwell's comments about the expressions named in the 700 12 fields; but so far as I can tell, there is no accommodation in RDA for saying "Resource A / Container of (expression) / Expression B."  RDA in Appendix J only provides for "Expression A / Container of (expression) / Expression B." It's the subject of this RDF triple that's problematic for me, moreso than the object.

 

The unconstrained property rdau:P60249, "is container of," is defined as "Relates a resource to a resource that is a discrete component of a larger resource." Maybe that's enough. I don't see a formal relationship in RDA that would declare only the object of a relationship to be an expression or that would require the object to be an expression AAP.

 

Stephen

 

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Robert Maxwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

In my opinion when we include "container of" relationship links in *bibliographic* records, we are simply fulfilling the core requirement in 0.6.8:

"When recording primary relationships between a work, expression, manifestation, and item, include as a minimum the work manifested. If there is more than one expression of the work, record the expression manifested."

This fulfils the 0.6.2 core requirement that when we describe a resource (e.g. a manifestation) we support the FRBR user task "identify and select a manifestation."

There are various ways to fulfil the core requirement of 0.6.8 when creating a bibliographic record. One is to record the relationship(s) by giving authorized access points in 7XX fields, or 1XX/240, if there is only one. The relationship designator "container of ..." given with an authorized access point in a 7XX field of a *bibliographic* record means, in my opinion, the *resource* (that is, the manifestation) I am describing "contains" such and such a work, or such and such an expression.

In my opinion, in the case of "Mail carrier", 0.6.8 requires that the *expression* be recorded (because there are more than one). 0.6.8 says that if there is more than one expression embodied in the manifestation, only the predominant or first named is required. In my judgment that would be the English-language expression. So it is a bit bizarre to me that the LC procedure is *not* to name the English-language expression, and instead name the work (which, I emphasize again, is *not* a stand-in for the original language expression in RDA) and then name the *other* (Spanish-language) expression.

In my opinion the *minimum* required by 0.6.8 would be:

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

I come to this conclusion because of the wording "If there is more than one expression of the work, record the *expression* manifested. ... If more than one expression is embodied in the manifestation, only the first-named expression manifested is required."

But I'd certainly go beyond the minimum and record both expressions:

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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2017 9:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Container of/Contained in

Thanks. For all practical purposes, allow me to return to our original scenario:

245 00 $a Mail carrier = $b El cartero / $c JoAnn Early Macken.
700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l English.
700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l Spanish.

Per Appendix J, there must be a container (of expression) that is larger than either of 2 700 fields, do we agree? That would be, in olden days, an entity like this:

100 1  $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l Spanish & English

But that possibility is gone, and now we would have to construct an expression-level AAP for it (very difficult to do) or simply look somewhere else and avoid using "Container of (expression)" altogether. Would the following relationship designators work at all?

a) based on J.3.2 (derivative expression relationship):
700 12 $i Translation of: $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l English.
700 12 $i Translated as:  $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l Spanish.

Or

b) based on J.3.5 (accompanying expression relationship):
700 12 $i Complemented by (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l English.
700 12 $i Complemented by (expression):  $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l Spanish.

Just a thought. Comments, please.

Yang

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2017 4:28 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Container of/Contained in

Yang Wang asks, "That being said, for consistency, do we all agree then that the designator "Container of (...)" in the bibliographical description represents the physical container, whereas in authority records we stick to single entity types and don't mix?"

No, I don't agree.  I think that in _all_ of the whole-part relationships in Appendix J, the entity type in the parentheses applies to both sides of the relationship.  Container of (expression) is used for an expression which contains another expression.  Container of (manifestation) is used for a manifestation which contains another manifestation.  This is true whether the relationship designator is used in a bibliographic record or an authority record.  I believe the descriptions of the subtypes listed under the designators in Appendix J supports this interpretation.

                                        Steve McDonald
                                        [log in to unmask]


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Monday, April 3, 2017 11:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Container of/Contained in

Adam,

I agree. In practice, most of us do seem to have been viewing the designator "Container of (...)" "as being the manifestation ... the physical container."

In theory (per RDA), however, there is this complication. A quick look in the Glossary under "Container of/in (...)" makes one question their universal applicability in the bibliographic description. "Container of (work)" means " A work that is a discrete component of a larger work" ... etc. For a compilation of the same-type aggregates, it may work nicely. For a compilation of aggregates of varying types, it's confusing, unless of course we consistently view the entire manifestation itself as the "container." By the way, the definition for "Container" itself (in the RDA glossary) is:  "A housing that is physically separable from the carrier being housed."

I realize that RDA/LRM is designed not just for the current MARC environment, but for whatever replaces it in the future. Due to certain limitations in MARC, mixed entities or usages are unavoidable.  That being said, for consistency, do we all agree then that the designator "Container of (...)" in the bibliographical description represents the physical container, whereas in authority records we stick to single entity types and don't mix?

Yang


-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 8:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Container of/Contained in

In the bibliographic description, I view the "container" as being the manifestation that is being described by the bibliographic record, that is, the physical container.  Therefore I don't see the self-reference that others refer to as "work contains itself".  I do realize that in most simple cases, we let the 100/245 do the duty of saying what work is contained in the manifestation.  I think in an ideal MARC world for RDA we would do away completely with using 1XX and 240 and simply use 245 to transcribe what appears on the manifestation, and then use 7XX to provide access to the works and expressions contained in the manifestation, so:

245 00 $a Mail carrier = $b El cartero / $c JoAnn Early Macken.
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.

or if you needed to explicitly name BOTH expressions:

245 00 $a Mail carrier = $b El cartero / $c JoAnn Early Macken.
700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l English.
700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l Spanish.

Actually, there would be nothing preventing one from naming the work AND both expressions:

245 00 $a Mail carrier = $b El cartero / $c JoAnn Early Macken.
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 English.
700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier. $l Spanish.

Mark Ehlert wrote: "If proceeding with the calculus that the work AAP = the original language expression AAP, then perhaps the following clarification is in order:
700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier."

I think the use show in the LC/PCC PS is a shortcut for convenience (and perhaps to avoid split files with how we currently describe things in MARC), and I agree with Bob Maxwell that "Macken, JoAnn Early, 1953- Mail carrier" can only be a work access point in RDA.  To be an expression access point, one must add an expression element (content type, date of expression, language of expression, and/or other distinguishing characteristic of expression) to the authorized access point for a work.  Therefore, using "Container of (expression)" is never appropriate with a work access point.

Doing away with the 1XX and 240 fields when we implemented RDA might have made things more simple and clear, but they would have also required us to always explicitly record an authorized access point for the work(s) or expression(s) manifested in 7XX fields, which would have created somewhat more work for catalogers.

Adam Schiff
University of Washington Libraries

-----Original Message-----
From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ehlert, Mark K.
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 2:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Container of/Contained in

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 3:15 PM
>
> Interesting and fair enough. But if the combination of the Name/Title
> entries (100/245) in the bib itself could stand for the larger “work”
> of which the first 700 is a constituent...

Which produces the statement that the work contains itself, which rankles me to no end.  I did away with this practice in my local video cataloging.  For dubbed films, I add a 130 when appropriate for the work and incorporate 730 02s with "Container of (expression)" for each language version, including the original.

If proceeding with the calculus that the work AAP = the original language expression AAP, then perhaps the following clarification is in order:
700 12 $i Container of (expression): $a Macken, JoAnn Early, $d 1953- $t Mail carrier.

--
Mark K. Ehlert                 O'Shaughnessy-Frey Library
Cataloging and Metadata        University of St. Thomas
  Librarian                    2115 Summit Avenue
Phone: 651-962-5488            St. Paul, MN 55105
<http://www.stthomas.edu/libraries/>

  "Experience is by industry achieved // And perfected by the swift course of time"--Shakespeare, "Two Gentlemen of Verona," Act I, Scene iii



 

--

Stephen Hearn, Metadata Strategist

Data Management & Access, University Libraries

University of Minnesota

160 Wilson Library

309 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55455

ORCID:  0000-0002-3590-1242



 

--

-- 
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: 212-851-2451