Indeed.  In the current RDA rules, the whole-part description is usually done at the Work level, as we see in the Little Earthquakes example.  In some cases, such as a work expressed in multiple languages within a single volume, the whole-part description must be done at the Expression level.  The whole-part description of a volume published with an accompanying disc could be done at the Manifestation level.  Whole-part description at the item level is seldom done except for special collections materials.

 

The point here is that, under current RDA rules, we describe the whole-part relationship at the highest level possible.  Usually this means work-work relationship designators.  Only if we must distinguish things on the expression level (as with multiple language expressions) do we use expression-expression relationship designators.  To answer Gene, we would not use “container of (expression)” to describe the contents of an album unless the contents were duplicated in multiple expressions and we felt it important to note each of the expressions separately.

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]

 

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 12:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Container of/Contained in

 

Jessica wrote: “I wanted to point out that the RDA MARC example records in the RDA toolkit use the phrase “container of (work)…”

 

The Tori Amos reference à pages 6-9 of the document “6JSC/RDA/Complete Examples (Bibliographic)/Revised)” (http://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/6jsc_rda_complete_examples_bibliographic_revisedoct2015.pdf). There, the term “Container of” is a work-to-work relationship designator. The title of the “larger” work (Container), so it seems, is Little earthquakes (Album):

 

100 1   $a Amos, Tori. $t Little earthquakes (Album)

500 1   $w r $i Container of (work): $a $a Amos, Tori. $t Crucify

 

100 1   $a Amos, Tori. $t Crucify

500 1   $w r $i Contained in (work): $a Amos, Tori. $t Little earthquakes (Album)

 

Seeing that “Little earthquake” is a song by itself in the compilation, we would need a Name/Title record for the “larger” work with a qualifier (Album). As such, the entire thing is being analyzed and cataloged at the work-level. All 700 12 fields point to the uniform title. To analyze it at the expression-level (as performed music), as Gene seemed to suggest earlier, would require a set of expression-level authority records to connect the dots.

 

It is interesting to note indeed that the phrase “Work manifested” is mentioned on page 6, only to point out that there’s “No equivalent encoding in MARC 21”; and the “RDA ref 17.8” leads us to a dead end (LC-PCC PS: Do not apply … in the current implementation scenario (2013-01)).

 

Yang

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of McDonald, Stephen
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 10:11 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Container of/Contained in

 

Those are just examples.  But it is true that, under current RDA rules, it is considered a work containing other works, and uses a work-work relationship designator.

 

The earlier discussion in this thread concerned a title that contained the same work in multiple languages.  Each of the translations is an expression, not a work, so the discussion circled around relationship designators for expressions, and the  Library of Congress policy in LC-PCC PS 6.27.3.

 

                                                                                Steve McDonald

                                                                                [log in to unmask]

 

 

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jessica Janecki
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 9:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Container of/Contained in

 

I was referring to the example records given in the RDA toolkit. For each example resource there is a "pure RDA record as well as a MARC record. The example MARC record for the Tori Amos audio CD uses the "container of (work)" wording.

 


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Holden, Christopher <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 9:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Container of/Contained in

 

Hi Jessica,

 

To which example in the RDA Toolkit are you referring? The only times I could find the phrase “Container of (work)” in RDA itself are the glossary, in which the relationship is defined as used for “A work that is a discrete component of a larger work”, and Appendix J, which defines the relationship as a “whole-part work relationship” (emphasis mine). In both cases, this relationship is used for a work that is part of a larger work – that is, an aggregate work that “contains” works within it.

 

In the case of an audio CD with multiple pieces on it, RDA (and FRBR) currently treat this as an aggregate work (the entire album) that contains smaller works as discrete components (the individual tracks). So what we’re really discussing is an aggregate work, whose expression is embodied in the manifestation of a physical CD, containing smaller works in a whole-part relationship. But that description is so jargon-laden and confusing that we end up using shorthand to refer to a physical carrier as “containing” works.

 

One confusing aspect of this is that RDA defines “container” as a physical object, but also uses the word to represent intellectual relationships between FRBR entities. But part of the confusion also comes from how hazily-defined an aggregate work is in FRBR. LRM has a much more robust way to look at aggregates (an audio CD in LRM would be an “aggregate collection of expressions,” and not a whole-part work), and presumably the revision of RDA will involve new relationship designators to reflect this.

 

(These opinions are my own 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 Jessica Janecki
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 5:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] Container of/Contained in

 

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