A Work is not represented by a bib record; it is represented by an authority record.  A bib record (generally) represents a Manifestation.  The bib record contains information derived from the Work, the Expression, and possibly the Item, but it represents the Manifestation.  The relationship between a Work and an Item would not be represented in a bib record.

If you wanted to record the relationship between the Work and the Item, you could do it in the authority record for the Work, or in a record for an Item.

                                                                                Steve McDonald
                                                                                [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Yang Wang
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 3:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] RDA Relationship designator for a manuscript

Exactly. That’s why I asked if there was a suitable term for the relationship between the intellectual content and the physical object. By tradition we give a 710 for the physical entity without spelling out how or what it is related to. And, what appears more complicated (or convoluted), again by convention, the work and the manuscript in some cases can be the same thing (just like a work of art?).

Thanks for confirming that AMREMM and CDRMMSS (maybe) are still working on it. In the current version of BIBCO (BSR) Application Profile, indeed, there’s no instruction on or mentioning of how or where to provide such an added entry in a MARC bib.


From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jessie Sherwood
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 1:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PCCLIST] RDA Relationship designator for a manuscript

RDA has instructions for works embodied in a manuscript (RDA and the LC-PCC PS for, though there aren't yet BSR for AMREMM or DCRMMSS.  The manuscript isn't contained in the manuscript; the manuscript is the manuscript, hence (I assume) there is no relationship designator. Thus, our manuscripts follow this pattern:
710 2-  [Institution].  ǂ k Manuscript.  ǂn MS #.

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:00 AM Yang Wang <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
There are clear instructions in RDA Toolkit for using “Relationship designators for related items” (J.5). So a facsimile of a manuscript would get something like this:

710 2# $i Facsimile of (item): $a BibliotheÌque nationale de France. $k Manuscript. $n Musique Ms. 117.

But when a MARC bib record describes a work or expression contained in a manuscript (i.e., cataloging a specific manuscript),  what would be the appropriate designator for the added entry of the manuscript itself?

710 2# $i Contained in (item): $a [Holding institution]. $k Manuscript. $n [Manuscript name/number]?


P.S. Per AMREMM guidelines (Descriptive Cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, and Early Modern Manuscripts, page 80), “manuscripts usually possess two uniform titles, one for the work contained in the manuscript and one for the manuscript itself as a physical entity.”

Jessie Sherwood, Ph.D., MLIS
Manuscript Cataloger
The Robbins Collection
UC Berkeley, School of Law
Tel: 510.643.1236
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>