[DCRM-L] Citations in RDA

Sun Aug 10 12:13:13 MDT 2014

Putting it as simply as possible

, references, as found in the MARC 510 field, are not about what the book
is about (a subject relationship), they are about the resource as an
exemplar of the work or expression accounted for in the reference source,
or as a distinct manifestation of a work or expression in the case of
descriptive bibliographies/discographies/catalogues raisonées, etc.: in any
case concerned with bibliographical relationships, a matter of descriptive
information.

One cites these resources as evidence for establishing WEMI relationships
among resources: a matter of identification. Treating the "described
in/describes" relationship as "subject" is accordingly a category error.

RICHARD NOBLE :: RARE MATERIALS CATALOGUER :: JOHN HAY LIBRARY
BROWN UNIVERSITY  ::  PROVIDENCE, R.I. 02912  ::  401-863-1187
<Richard_Noble at Br <RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU>own.edu>

On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 1:32 PM, JOHN C ATTIG <jxa16 at psu.edu> wrote:

> I have played several roles relevant to this proposal.
>
> First, I drafted RDA Appendix J on behalf of the JSC.  I included the
> Descriptive relationships in Appendix J with the 510 field in mind.
> Although it was argued that descriptive relationships are by definition
> subject relationships (and therefore out of scope for RDA at that point), I
> argued that this particular use case -- references citing published
> descriptions of a resource -- needed to be supported by RDA, and that
> treating them as structured descriptions of the "described in" relationship
> was the best way to do this.
>
> As a member of the JSC Technical Working Group, I noted that
> Recommendation 2 in this document would have made it impossible to record a
> reference citing a particular edition (expression) of a bibliography, etc.
> (the second editions of the Short-Title Catalogues came to mind).
> Therefore, I described this use case and urged the group to include what
> now appears as recommendation 3.
>
> With this by way of background, I will add that I am still not convinced
> that the "described in" relationships currently in Appendix J need to be
> treated as a type of subject relationship -- and that therefore any
> references to an expression, manifestation, or item cannot be valid.  Or,
> to argue a slightly different point, I think that this use case may
> demonstrate that not all "subject" relationships relate to the *work*.
> However, that is the current state of the models RDA is attempting to
> follow.  Recommendation 3 does at least provide an appropriate element in
> which to record references to published descriptions, even if those
> references are in an expression, manifestation, or an item -- which would
> allow the practice of recording such references in field 510 to be covered
> by RDA.
>
> All this is a long way of saying that I agree with Francis's suggestion
> that we endorse Recommendations 3 and 4 -- and to suggest that we might
> wish to comment on Recommendation 2.
>
>         John
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Francis Lapka" <francis.lapka at yale.edu>
> *To: *dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
> *Sent: *Thursday, August 7, 2014 12:53:24 PM
> *Subject: *[DCRM-L] Citations in RDA
>
>
>  The JSC Technical Working Group has just posted a paper of interest:
>
> “High-level subject relationship in RDA”
>
> http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC-TechnicalWG-3.pdf
>
>
>
> I recommend skipping ahead to page 4 of the report (and going no farther
> than page 5), where there is direct mention of *Standard Citation Forms
> for Rare Book Cataloging*. I copy the relevant portion at the end of this
> message.
>
>
>
> If I read the paper correctly, it proposes two changes, both of which
> would be useful for our community:
>
>
>
> 1.      *Recommendation 3*:  For each WEMI entity, add a new RDA element
> (i.e. an *attribute*) in which we may record references to published
> descriptions. This field would, I believe, directly correspond to our
> current practice of recording citations as notes (in the 510 field). The
> paper proposes a label “Referenced to Publish Citation.” RDA does not,
> currently, give any explicit accommodation for this data.
>
>
>
> 2.      *Recommendation 4*:  “Develop a set of designators that relate
> WEMI to the Work or Expression containing the citation.” This would enable
> citations in the form of *relationships* to the works/expressions
> containing the information. It would allow us express the relationship to a
> specific *Expression* containing the citation, which is (I think) exactly
> what we want, given that SCF uses the Expression as the basic unit.
>
>
>
> I’m keen to hear your thoughts. Provisionally, I suggest that we endorse
> Recommendations 3 and 4 (by way of our CC:DA Liaison).
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <begin snip, p. 4>
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 2*: Bring the RDA descriptive relationships designators in
> to line with FRSAD by allowing only *Work *to be the domain of primary des
> criptive relationship designators for WEMI entities (and the range of their
> reciprocal designators) as indicated in Table 4, and by adding sub- proper
> ty relationships to the new subject relationship element.
>
>
>
> The Working Group recognizes that Recommendation 2 removes accommodation f
> or one of the use cases that the "described in" relationship was intended
> to support. The "described in" relationship is the reciprocal of the "desc
> ription of …" relationship. The use case is illustrated by the descriptive
> practice that was specified in AACR2 1.7B15, References to Published De
> scriptions, using the MARC field 510.  Such references to published descri
> ptions or citations are very frequently included in records for rare mate
> rials; there is even a published list of Standard Citation Forms for Rare
> Book Cataloging, the third edition of which is being prepared for publicat
> ion.
>
>
>
> These references provide detailed information that supports the identifica
> tion of the particular resource (WEMI) being described.  While many of the
> bibliographies and catalogues that are referenced exist in only one expr
> ession (and therefore the "described in" relationship with range *Work  *
> is adequate), many exist in multiple expressions and the reference must often
> be to a specified *Expression *of the *W**ork*.
>
>
>
> However, the semantics of the term "described in" are significantly differ
> ent in this case. Recommendation 2 ensures the term means the reciprocal of
> "description of". The term "described by" can have the same meaning; this
> is another example of the problems of relying on labels. The nuances betw
> een "in" and "by" are those of extent: "in" indicating "part" and "by" ind
> icating "co- extensive". Also, the term "description" can refer to unstru
> ctured or structured data about a thing. Recommendation 2 is consistent with
> unstructured data (a *Work*) which is co-extensive with its Thema, that
> is, WEMI.
>
>
>
> The use case is consistent with a structured or unstructured description w
> hich is part of a specific *Expression *of a *Work *which is not intended
> to be about the particular subject of the description (the specified WEM
> I). Less ambiguous terms for a structured description are "metadata", "bib
> liographic record", "bibliographic reference", "citation", etc. The RDA el
> ement *Preferred Citation *is a *Manifestation *attribute, and therefore h
> as a literal containing the text of the citation as its range. RDA refers
> confusingly to such a citation as an *unstructured description*. The defin
> itions of the relationship designators *appendix *and *appendix to *contain
> the phrase "list of references". These have overlapping semantics.
>
>
>
> The need to maintain RDA support for the "citation" use case and the ove
> rlap in semantics with at least one RDA element and several relationship d
> esignators suggests the development of a set of designators that relate WE
> MI to the *Work *or *Expression *containing the citation, such as "cited i
> n" and "cites" for the reciprocal. These will be cross-entity designators with
> the issues discussed above. However, this does not preclude the addition of
> an attribute element for each of WEMI that accommodates the text of the
> citation to the *Work *or *Expression*, in a similar way to *Preferred
> Citation*. The generic label of the element might be *Reference to
> Published Citation *(or *Reference to Published Description *if "citation" is
> too narrow). A proposed definition is "A citation for a published descrip
> tion of a …".
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 3*: Add to RDA the elements: *Reference to Published
> Citation (Work)*, Definition: "A citation for a published description of a
> work.", domain: *Work*; *Reference to Published Citation (Expression)*, De
> finition: "A citation for a published description of an expression.", dom
> ain: *Expression*; *Reference to Published Citation (Manifestation)*, Defi
> nition: "A citation for a published description of a manifestation.", dom
> ain: *Manifestation*; *Reference to Published Citation (Item)*, Definition
> : "A citation for a published description of a item.", domain: *Item*.
>
>
>
> *Recommendation 4*: Develop a set of designators that relate WEMI to the *Work
> *or *Expression*
>
> containing the citation.
>
>
>
> <end snip, p. 5>
>
>
>
> _________________________________
>
> *Francis Lapka, Catalog Librarian*
>
> Yale Center for British Art, Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
>
> 1080 Chapel Street, PO Box 208280, New Haven, CT  06520
>
> 203.432.9672    francis.lapka at yale.edu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140810/2bb686b2/attachment-0001.html>