[DCRM-L] Citations in RDA

[Beacom, Matthew]

This article on canonical references in e-texts touches on some of the issues raised in this discussion and may be of interest. There is much in the article not immediately pertinent to this discussion, but from my first perusal, he seems to think citations as WEMI to WEMI references.

"Canonical References in Electronic Texts: Rationale and Best Practices" by Joel Kalvesmaki in _Digital Humanities Quarterly_ 2014, Volume 8, Number 2.
http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/8/2/000181/000181.html

The Abstract: 

Systems of canonical references, whereby segments of written works are sequentially labeled with numbers or letters to facilitate cross-referencing, are widely used but seldom studied, undeservedly so. Canonical numbers are complex interpretive mechanisms with a great deal of potential for anyone editing and using electronic texts. In this essay I consider the rationale for and nature of canonical reference systems, to recommend principles to consider when deploying them in digital projects. After briefly reviewing the history of canonical references I note how they have been used so far, emphasizing the advances made by Canonical Text Services (CTS). I argue that the practical and theoretical problems that remain unaddressed require engagement with descriptions of how textual scholarship works and how notional literary works relate to the artefacts that carry them (using Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, FRBR). By correlating a theory of canonical reference numbers with those two models — editorial workflow and creative works — I offer key principles that should be addressed when planning, writing, and using digital projects.

Matthew Beacom
>
> ________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
>