[DCRM-L] a model ship

Fri Jan 10 08:39:24 MST 2020

I personally agree with the notion that the kit is a work and the finished model is an expression of the work. As Francis points out, this is analogous to a performer’s interpretation of a musical work, which results in an expression, not a new work.

However, to add a monkey wrench to Francis’s current conclusion, “Shipyard” can’t be the principal creator because it is a corporate body, and this work doesn’t fit into any of the categories of RDA 19.2.1.1.1 – the model isn’t a work of an administrative nature dealing with the body, it isn’t a work that reflects the collective thought of the body, etc. etc. (I’m quite sure it isn’t “h”, a “named individual work of art by two or more artists acting as a corporate body.”) So the authorized access point for the ship would be the preferred title alone (with a qualifier if it conflicts with some other entity’s AAP) (and assuming the preferred title is identical to the title proper), and the bibliographic record would have no 110. (It might have a 130 if it is necessary to qualify the preferred title to create the AAP).

One could fashion an AAP for this individual expression by adding the name of the model-maker to the AAP for the work in some way and then create a bibliographic record for the individual expression, e.g.:

130  Model of HMS Victory $s (Model maker’s surname)

Bob

Robert L. Maxwell
Ancient Languages and Special Collections Librarian
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu> On Behalf Of Lapka, Francis
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2020 7:24 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] a model ship

All responses in this thread have been thoughtful. Thank you!

Here’s a photo of the model.

I started to doubt my instinct to treat it as a work of the kit maker upon reading the model maker’s bibliography of books consulted (“… its [the model’s] realization and supplementation were materially assisted by reference to …”). I now lean towards describing the assembled model as a unique object. That the completed model is a different entity than the kit as issued is most evident when considering a field such as dimensions. It’s at least a different manifestation; I think a new work, as well.

Folks have made interesting comparisons to other categories of material, and I’ll add my own. The model maker’s interpretation of the kit manufacturer’s design is somewhat akin to a performer’s interpretation of a musical score (i.e., a performance work). For the latter, I believe the composer is routinely treated as main entry.

With that in mind, I’m inclined to proceed as follows, details to be filled in:

110 2# $a Shipyard. <This is the kit maker.>
245 10 $a Model of HMS Victory.
264 #0 $c 2018. <This is the date the model was assembled>
300 ## $a 1 model : $b paper, wood, brass, thread ; $c 78 x 109 x 37 cm <dimensions of the model as assembled>
[…]
500 ## $a [Something like:] The model was assembled in 2018 by [model maker’s name], with modifications and supplements to the kit maker’s original design.
[…]
700 1# $a [model maker’s name], $e ???.

Francis

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Stephen A Skuce
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 2:38 PM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] a model ship

I find myself, shockingly, in gentle disagreement with Deborah and John.

I see a ship built from a kit, even if it sports some modifications (paint perhaps, or other decorations), as analogous to an assembled jigsaw puzzle. The ship may be vastly more complicated to assemble, but the assembler generally can't exercise much real creativity at all, can she? The pieces are pre-cut and are supplied, along with instructions. The kit's designer and manufacturer seem to me much more responsible for its creative content than a person who follows the manufacturer's instructions in assembling it. Any model builder who strays much, or at all, from such instructions will be sorry.

Heck, now I think it's even analogous to a printed book. We don't see a bound copy of a machine press book as a collaboration between the author/printer and the bookbinder. The binder receives printed sheets, whose signatures serve as a set of instructions somewhat analogous to those accompanying the model ship. The order of assembly is dictated, and woe to the binder who gets creative with the order of things inside her binding, however beautiful and unique that binding may be.

Stephen Skuce

MIT Libraries (retired)

________________________________
From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> on behalf of Deborah J. Leslie <DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu<mailto:DJLeslie at FOLGER.edu>>
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 1:32 PM
To: 'DCRM Users' Group'
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] a model ship

I'm glad John and Dave spoke up, because I also had the original thought that the assembler was the primary creator and was a little surprised by initial responses.

______________________
Deborah J Leslie (she/her) | Senior Cataloger | Folger Shakespeare Library | 201 East Capitol Street, S.E. Washington, DC 20003 | djleslie at folger.edu<mailto:djleslie at folger.edu> | www.folger.edu<http://www.folger.edu>

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Van Kleeck,David A
Sent: Thursday, 9 January, 2020 12:32
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] a model ship

This is fascinating!

My initial thoughts echo John's. It struck me that the relationship between the model kit and the assembler come the closest to something along the lines of RDA's relationship designators for agents associated with a work. Somewhere in the neighborhood of:

Compiler - "An agent responsible for creating a new work … by selecting, arranging, aggregating, and editing data, information, etc." (in this case, model parts)
Composer - "Adaptation of another … work to form a distinct alteration, paraphrasing a work or creating a work in the general style of …, or creating a work that is based on …, is included."
Director - "An agent responsible for the general management and supervision of …" (in this case, building a ship model).

This is especially true if one thinks about it in terms of the relationship between a film script and a film. Just as a director determines what scenes are shot when, or how a given scene is depicted, the model assembler determines how the parts of the model are assembled, what colors to paint them, etc.

I also agree with John about treating "the assembler as the primary creator, as he/she is the one who modified the original kit to create this new work."

I see both viewpoints however, and look forward to the resulting consensus.

Dave

David Van Kleeck
Chair, Cataloging and Discovery Services
University of Florida

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Attig, John C
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 11:23 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] a model ship

[External Email]
I hate to oppose an emerging consensus, but …

It seems to me that your copy of the model kit has been modified in such a substantial way that it constitutes a new work.  I just don’t see that an unassembled kit and the assembled model can be considered expressions of the same work.

In my opinion, the work that you have is a collaboration between the manufacturer of the model and the assembler of this copy. In this sort of collaboration, I don’t think that there are any hard-and-fast rules about who is considered the primary creator, but I would be tempted to treat the assembler as the primary creator, as he/she is the one who modified the original kit to create this new work.

I would indeed treat the original ship as a related work, but for purely pragmatic reasons, I think I would be tempted to treat this as a subject relationship.

Thanks for sharing this fascinating conundrum with us, Francis.

John Attig
Penn State University (ret.)

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Jessica Janecki
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 11:06 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] a model ship

To piggyback on what Julie said, I think your situation with the assembled and augmented model is rather similar to an extra-illustrated copy of a book. 9 times out of 10 I catalog an extra illustrated copy first as what the “base” book was and then add as many local notes and tracings as needed to explain the extra-illustration of our copy. However, sometimes institutional needs tip the balance and I need to catalog it as a manuscript or mixed material collection created by the extra-illustrator in order to emphasize their role. Also, occasionally the extra-illustration is so transformative that I need to emphasize the uniqueness and originality of our copy.

Jessica Janecki

From: DCRM-L <dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu>> On Behalf Of Julie Moore
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:57 AM
To: DCRM Users' Group <dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu<mailto:dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu>>
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] a model ship

I am a generalist Special Collections cataloger, far away from the HMS Victory. As such, I would catalog it as the model from the manufacturer. That way, the MARC record is useable by other institutions in OCLC. You can always add local notes and added entries for your model assembler.

I would be very thankful that it came assembled!!! 🙂

Julie Moore
Special Collections Catalog Librarian
Fresno State
Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 9, 2020, at 7:13 AM, Jane Wickenden <jane.wickenden at zen.co.uk<mailto:jane.wickenden at zen.co.uk>> wrote:
I'd be inclined to treat the kit originator as the main author and the model builder as an editor, the resulting Victory being a sort of "edition" of the kit.

But what an interesting thing to be cataloguing!

Jane
(who is across the harbour from HMS Victory the original)

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020, 14:48 Lapka, Francis, <francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>> wrote:
I have at my desk an assembled model of HMS Victory, similar to this: https://modelshipworld.com/topic/7688-shipyard-hms-alert-1777-196-scale-paper-model-kit/<https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttps-253A-252F-252Furldefense.proofpoint.com-252Fv2-252Furl-253Fu-253Dhttps-2D3A-5F-5Fmodelshipworld.com-5Ftopic-5F7688-2D2Dshipyard-2D2Dhms-2D2Dalert-2D2D1777-2D2D196-2D2Dscale-2D2Dpaper-2D2Dmodel-2D2Dkit-5F-2526d-253DDwMFaQ-2526c-253DimBPVzF25OnBgGmVOlcsiEgHoG1i6YHLR0Sj-5FgZ4adc-2526r-253DsyBsD9wdK9qbcbzV6L7LBDioGeBDJPoOLT41UkKlSOw-2526m-253DBl-5FTXkqOvaIv5MmHAR7okAzmEioCy0AlkBrBBJAz8EA-2526s-253D5D4Cb423ADToYzNqA5-2DcRAVro3uRJRec22w-5FqnLDCdE-2526e-253D-26data-3D02-257C01-257Cjxa16-2540psu.edu-257Ccedbfc3ca8c340c06e7b08d7951ded87-257C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e-257C0-257C0-257C637141828086849461-26sdata-3DYD27cm4kRrof7orZBx0ig8g4uGG6BE7XpUFWh3IDrDA-253D-26reserved-3D0%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DsJ6xIWYx-zLMB3EPkvcnVg%26r%3D3E15ZNUNGJa3uCOLjNNi6k54MyQBrwEAA3scevvjoLY%26m%3Dve0QIcusxw3BGwlm_JYpdM9dQ6YB2IR_waHPqgs8v_8%26s%3DrawfyOwn8px59T12hxIepcQYG7-JGVYcB4-5NcN1i6M%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cfrancis.lapka%40yale.edu%7C19c78e0f4e074d07de8b08d7953b8625%7Cdd8cbebb21394df8b4114e3e87abeb5c%7C0%7C0%7C637141955206754882&sdata=5pPV6R7yyLDrDYJbIXlm%2BUkNlSlOh2kVV3WiHt1%2BcuY%3D&reserved=0>

I’m debating whether to describe it as primarily the work of the kit manufacturer (a Polish firm) or as the work of the local fellow who assembled it, with some modifications and supplements to the manufacturer’s design. Put another way: should I treat this as a multiple, or as a unique object? (If unassembled, the decision would be easy.) The decision affects a host of fields, including main entry, place, and date.

On a less complicated note: Does anyone know of an established relationship designator to convey the role of model maker? I haven’t found one.

I’m keen to hear your perspectives.

-Francis

(I recognize that this a special collections cataloging question, not strictly DCRM.)

Francis Lapka
Senior Catalogue Librarian
Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts
Yale Center for British Art
203-432-9672  ·  francis.lapka at yale.edu<mailto:francis.lapka at yale.edu>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20200110/3dd2f8d2/attachment-0001.html>