[DCRM-L] RDA revision proposal: References to Descriptions

[Noble, Richard]

A quick one: J3.3 "referenced in" -- should it read "contains a description
or enumeration of the described work, expression ..." for "contains a
description, enumeration or the described work, expression ...". The latter
makes no sense.

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 Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Matthew C. Haugen <
matthew.haugen at columbia.edu> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I welcome your feedback on an RDA revision proposal on References to
> Descriptions. This proposal is being led by RBMS and proposes new
> relationship designators and revised instructions to accommodate references
> and citations of the type usually recorded using Standard Citation Forms
> (SCF) in MARC 510.
>
> http://alcts.ala.org/ccdablog/?p=2073
>
> There won't be much time on the BSC agenda at Annual, so I encourage your
> feedback before then either directly to me or on the list. Commenting on
> the CC:DA blog is restricted to current members and liaisons, so I will be
> happy to convey a DCRM response.
>
> I have a few questions, and I hope that the draft will be improved by
> discussion of these issues:
>
> 1. Guidance on the use of SCF is currently given in LC-PCC PS 25.1
> (Related work), and I expect that this will continue to exist in RBMS
> documentation and policy statements external to the RDA text even if the
> proposal is accepted. Chapter 25 accommodates work-work relationships, and
> "descriptive relationships" have been re-modeled as subject relationships.
> This proposal emphasizes that the referential relationship embodied in a
> typical rare materials reference is manifestation-to-expression or
> item-to-expression; our proposal focuses narrowly on these cases in
> revisions to Chapter 26 (related expressions), but in doing so it opens the
> door to other cross-entity relationships throughout chapters 24-28. Does
> the proposal need to address those cases as well?
>
> 2. RDA gives four basic methods for identifying the related entity along
> with a relationship designator; authorized access point, identifier,
> structured description, or unstructured description. I wonder whether a
> standard citation form most closely resembles one of these methods. It
> seems to me it's either a type of authorized access point (even if
> formulated differently from RDA) or a structured description.
>
> Thanks in advance for your feedback, and thanks also to the co-authors who
> worked hard on this draft: Francis Lapka, Allison O'Dell, John Attig, and
> Larry Creider.
>
> Matt
>
> --
>
> --
> 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/20150615/e82907bd/attachment-0001.html>