Quoting Jonathan Rochkind <[log in to unmask]>:

> Karen Coyle wrote:

> I think the confusion is that I believe there are MORE THAN ONE
> "wemi" element involved in an agregate.
>
> Collected Works of John Doe  (Work1)
>    expressed by:  Collected Works of John Doe (first edition) (Expression1)
>        manifested by: Collected Works of John Doe PDF version
> (manifestation1)
>             ---> CONTAINS/AGGREGATES
>                Does and Deers by John Doe (Work2)
>                     expressed by: Does and Deers by John Doe (only
> edition that ever existed) (Expression2)
>                         manifested by: Does and Deers by John Doe [as
> included in the Collected Works (Work1)] (manifestation2)
>                Badgers by John Doe  (Work3)
>                      etc

Yes, absolutely. But what I see happening here is so very like what we  
have today with a bib description of the manifestation and then "added  
entries" -- in this case added relationships -- for the individual  
works/expressions. And there's some logic to that view, although it  
naturally favors the package over the contents. So we'll have some  
works that are what users think of as works, and other works that  
represent the publisher's package -- which sometimes will be something  
that makes sense to the user, but at other times, as in many music  
CDs, is bordering on the arbitrary. If we present these all as works  
to the user, confusion will ensue.

In the RDA relationships (which I've summarized here  
http://kcoyle.net/rda/group1relsby.html) there seem to be two kinds:  
intellectual relationships, and bibliographic relationships. "Is  
adapted from" is an intellectual relationship; "Contains" is a  
bibliographic relationship. They're all mixed together as if they are  
the same thing. I think there's a big difference between describing a  
publication and describing an intellectual universe. I would prefer  
for there to be some line (perhaps not a bright line) between those  
functions. Library cataloging is mainly about bibliographic  
description. The intellectual relationships get very little attention  
in that view -- perhaps a note ("Based on....") and an  
undifferentiated added entry.

It could be that cataloging *should* limit itself to that  
bibliographic description, and that some other function -- something  
akin to the creation of subject bibliographies -- should be allowed to  
create the intellectual connections between works. Where I think  
library catalogs lose their users is in trying to do a little of the  
latter, but not doing it well, and mixing the two functions in a way  
that is confusing.

kc



-- 
Karen Coyle
[log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet