[DCRM-L] Citations in RDA

[Laurence S. Creider]

I have to agree with Richard on the basic point that the bibliographic
object relationship to a citation is not a subject relationship, although
I would go at the problem from a different angle.   One might as well say
that the bibliographic record has a subject relationship to the
bibliographic object.  Such thinking is possible, but I do not believe
that it would help users or librarians.

One can say that the bibliographic object is an instance of the
description cited in the resource.  Sometimes a particular manifestation
or even an item might be described in a given bibliographic citation, but
the citation is not so much about the bibliographic object but a
description/surrogate of/for it.

I hope this helps rather than confuses the issue.

Larry
-- 
Laurence S. Creider
Head, Archives and Special Collections Dept.
University Library
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM  88003
Work: 575-646-4756
Fax: 575-646-7477
lcreider at lib.nmsu.edu

On Tue, August 19, 2014 12:16 pm, Schneider, Nina wrote:
> Francis
>
> Sorry for the long delay in responding. This draft is looking really
good.
> In Richard Noble’s email of 8/10, he states: “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.” Although
the
> language of RDA is one with which I struggle, I think that the
> relationship between the bibliographic entry and the WEMI (or the EMI)
could be considered a subject relationship. The item described/listed in
the bibliographic entry is the subject of that entry.
>
> Nina
>
>
> +---------------
> Nina M. Schneider
> Head Cataloger
> William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
> 2520 Cimarron Street
> Los Angeles, CA  90018
> (323) 731-8529
>
> nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu<mailto:nschneider at humnet.ucla.edu>
> http://www.clarklibrary.ucla.edu/
>
>
>
>
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On
Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 6:58 AM
> To: DCRM Users' Group
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Citations in RDA
>
> It’s good to know that we have someone on the Technical Working Group
looking out for our interests!  I too have mixed feelings about the
treatment of the “described in/describes” relationship as subject;
but
> I don’t feel knowledgeable enough about the FRSAD model to argue that
case (others are welcome to!).
>
> To get the ball rolling for our support of Recommendations 3 and 4,
here’s a start:
>
> RBMS supports Recommendations 3 and 4. The practice of making References
to Published Descriptions is vital to special collections cataloging.
For
> descriptive cataloging, the addition of attributes for Reference to
Published Citation (Manifestation) and Reference to Published Citation
(Item) would be very welcome. They would formally provide RDA elements
for
> citations of the kind that we record in MARC bibliographic field 510.
While Reference to Published Citation (Work) and Reference to Published
Citation (Expression) are generally out of scope of DCRM, they would be
logical additions as well.
>
> Current community practice (as embodied in Standard Citation Forms for
Rare Book Cataloging) places an emphasis on citations as attributes;
however, we do look forward to the possibility of expressing these
citations as relationships. To that end, Recommendation 4 is a necessary
component of the current proposal. It is imperative that we are able to
establish a relationship between the Manifestation/Item in hand and the
Expression of the bibliography (etc.) in which it is cited. Expressions
of
> bibliographies (etc.) are the fundamental unit of reference in Standard
Citation Forms for Rare Book Cataloging.
>
>
>
> Francis
>
>
>
> From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>
[mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of JOHN C ATTIG
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 1:32 PM
> To: DCRM Users' Group
> Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Citations in RDA
>
> 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<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>>
> To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto: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
into
> line with FRSAD by allowing only Work to be the domain of primary
descriptive relationship designators for WEMI entities (and the range of
their 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
"description of …" relationship. The use case is illustrated by the
descriptive practice that was specified in AACR2 1.7B15, References to
Published Descriptions, using the MARC field 510.  Such references to
published descriptions or citations are very frequently included in
records for rare materials; there is even a published list of Standard
Citation Forms for Rare Book Cataloging, the third edition of which is
being prepared for publication.
>
> These references provide detailed information that supports the
> identification of the particular resource (WEMI) being described.  While
many of the bibliographies and catalogues that are referenced exist in
only one expression (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 Work.
>
> However, the semantics of the term "described in" are significantly
different 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 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 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
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 WEMI).
Less ambiguous terms for a structured description are "metadata",
"bibliographic record", "bibliographic reference", "citation", etc. The
RDA element Preferred Citation is a Manifestation attribute, and
therefore
> has a literal containing the text of the citation as its range. RDA
refers
> 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
> semantics.
>
>
> The need to maintain RDA support for the "citation" use case and the
overlap 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
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 description 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), 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<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>
>
>
>
>