[DCRM-L] Citations in RDA

[Matthew C. Haugen]

It's hard to think of references/citations in a bibliographic record as
subject relationships, but I find it easier to characterize the reciprocal
that way. Bibliographies, indexes, or other resources which describe WEMI
entities have a subject relationship to those entities, much like
biographies "describe" persons and persons are "described in" biographies.

I also think it will be helpful to distinguish between references which
describe manifestations and items, as these references may be copy-specific
at times. I have previously wished 510 $5 were defined for this purpose.

Matthew



On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Noble, Richard <richard_noble at brown.edu>
wrote:

> 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 i
>> nto line with FRSAD by allowing only *Work *to be the domain of primary d
>> escriptive relationship designators for WEMI entities (and the range of t
>> heir reciprocal designators) as indicated in Table 4, and by adding sub-
>> property relationships to the new subject relationship element.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Working Group recognizes that Recommendation 2 removes accommodation
>> for one of the use cases that the "described in" relationship was intended
>> to support. The "described in" relationship is the reciprocal of the "de
>> scription of …" relationship. The use case is illustrated by the descrip
>> tive practice that was specified in AACR2 1.7B15, References to Published
>> Descriptions, using the MARC field 510.  Such references to published des
>> criptions or citations are very frequently included in records for rare m
>> aterials; there is even a published list of Standard Citation Forms for R
>> are Book Cataloging, the third edition of which is being prepared for pub
>> lication.
>>
>>
>>
>> These references provide detailed information that supports the identific
>> ation of the particular resource (WEMI) being described.  While many of t
>> he bibliographies and catalogues that are referenced exist in only one ex
>> pression (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 diffe
>> rent in this case. Recommendation 2 ensures the term means the reciprocal
>> of "description of". The term "described by" can have the same meaning; t
>> his is another example of the problems of relying on labels. The nuances
>> between "in" and "by" are those of extent: "in" indicating "part" and "by
>> " indicating "co- extensive". Also, the term "description" can refer to
>> unstructured or structured data about a thing. Recommendation 2 is consi
>> stent with unstructured data (a *Work*) which is co-extensive with its Th
>> ema, that is, WEMI.
>>
>>
>>
>> The use case is consistent with a structured or unstructured description
>> which 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", "bi
>> bliographic record", "bibliographic reference", "citation", etc. The RDA
>> element *Preferred Citation *is a *Manifestation *attribute, and therefo
>> re has a literal containing the text of the citation as its range. RDA re
>> fers confusingly to such a citation as an *unstructured description*. The
>> definitions of the relationship designators *appendix *and *appendix to *
>> contain the phrase "list of references". These have overlapping semantic
>> s.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>> designators suggests the development of a set of designators that relate
>> WEMI to the *Work *or *Expression *containing the citation, such as "cited
>> in" and "cites" for the reciprocal. These will be cross-entity designato
>> rs with the issues discussed above. However, this does not preclude the a
>> ddition 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 de
>> scription 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)*,
>> Definition: "A citation for a published description of an expression.",
>> domain: *Expression*; *Reference to Published Citation (Manifestation)*,
>> Definition: "A citation for a published description of a manifestation.",
>> domain: *Manifestation*; *Reference to Published Citation (Item)*, Defin
>> ition: "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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 

-- 
Matthew C. Haugen
Rare Book Cataloger
102 Butler Library
Columbia University Libraries
E-mail: matthew.haugen at columbia.edu
Phone: 212-851-2451
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20140811/74b69fb9/attachment-0001.html>