A big mistake, if it means what we think it means, that RDA has decided
that a given Manifestation can not contain several Expressions.
Riley, Jenn wrote:
>> What the RDA folks (that is, the folks
>> who have created RDA, the JSC members) said (some of them off-list to
>> me), is that if your manifestation is an aggregate, then your
>> Expression must be an equal aggregate. So the Expression is pretty
>> much one-to-one with the Manifestation. (And I think we were all
>> seeing a many-to-many.)
>>
>
> I see this conclusion as RDA's, but not FRBR's. The FRBR report explicitly
> says there can be a many-to-one relationship between Expressions and a
> Manifestation (that is, a Manifestation can embody several Expressions), and
> the V/FRBR project takes that at face value and does not impose the
> additional restriction that a Manifestation contains an equal aggregate. RDA
> may impose that restriction, but that's their implementation of FRBR, and
> the V/FRBR project as *not* an RDA implementation doesn't feel bound by that
> decision.
>
> Obviously I think that RDA has made a mistake in adding in a requirement
> that "if your manifestation is an aggregate, then your Expression must be an
> equal aggregate." But that's their business, I guess.
>
> Jenn
>
> ========================
> Jenn Riley
> Metadata Librarian
> Digital Library Program
> Indiana University - Bloomington
> Wells Library W501
> (812) 856-5759
> www.dlib.indiana.edu
>
> Inquiring Librarian blog: www.inquiringlibrarian.blogspot.com
>
>
|