[rak-list] "Work manifested" in den neuen RDA-Beispielen

[Heidrun Wiesenmüller]

Liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen,

vor kurzem hatten wir hier auf der Liste über die neuen Beispiele des 
JSC gesprochen, bei denen verblüffenderweise ein zusätzliches 
RDA-Element "work manifested" erscheint, obwohl es sich um "composite 
descriptions" handelt, bei denen die Ebenen Werk, Expression und 
Manifestation vermischt vorliegen. Ich hatte daraufhin zunächst an die 
RDA List geschrieben:

> I am mulling over the data element "work manifested" in the examples for
> RDA bibliographic records  released by the JSC some time ago:
> http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/6JSC_RDA_Complete_Examples_%28Bibliographic%29_Revised_2012.pdf
>   
> For instance, look at the example for Arlene Taylor's "The organization
> of information" (book 1, p. 10): There, you'll not only find the data
> element "creator" (Taylor, Arlene G., 1941-), but also the data element
> "work manifested" (Taylor, Arlene G., 1941-. Organization of
> information). Note the beautiful footnote: "No equivalent encoding in
> MARC 21". In the earlier version of these examples wich accompanied the
> full draft of 2008, this data element wasn't there at all, and its
> appearance now strikes me as rather odd.
>   
> Granted: "Work manifested" (17.8) is a core element in RDA (cf. 17.3:
> "When recording primary relationships, include as a minimum the work
> manifested."). But in 17.4.2, three conventions for recording primary
> relationships are outlined, and I believe that only the first and the
> second presuppose "work manifested" as a single data element: For these
> two methods, an identifier for the work (method 1) or the authorized
> access point representing the work (method 2), respectively, are used.
>   
> The third method, however, does not seem to require one single data
> element "work manifested": "Prepare a composite description that
> combines one or more elements identifying the work and/or expression
> with the description of the manifestation." So, in this case, the
> identification of the work is achieved by one or more elements which
> really belong on work level, although in the record they are mixed
> together with information on manifestation level. Typically, these will
> be the data elements for the first "creator" and for the "preferred
> title of the work" (vulgo: uniform title). I'd argue that in cases where
> there's no need to determine a uniform title (e.g. if there is only one
> manifestation of the work in question), the title of the manifestation
> can be used instead.
>   
> The RDA example for "book 1" mentioned earlier follows this third method
> for recording primary relationships, i.e. it is a "composite
> description", which basically looks like the conventional MARC record.
> Therefore, I find it hard to understand why the information about the
> work manifested is given _twice_ in the same record: Once _implicitly_
> according to method 3 (by giving the data elements "creator" and "title
> proper" as part of the composite description) and a second time
> _explicitly_ according to method 2 (by giving the authorized access
> point representing the work).
>   
> Shouldn't it be either the one (in a composite description) or the other
> (in a different implementation scenario for RDA, something closer to
> scenario 1)? As it stands now, the information given seems to be redundant.
>   
> Any ideas?

Daraufhin gab es zwar eine interessante Diskussion, aber wenig 
Hilfreiches zu meiner Frage. Ich habe das Thema nun mit Barbara Tillett 
diskutiert. Ihre erste Antwort war:

> Dear Heidrun - The seemingly "redundant" data is there for machines to 
> know the actual work level data, even though it is the same as the 
> composite data in the record for the manifestation's title proper, and 
> a human can likely interpret it as implying the preferred title of the 
> work.
>
> Does that help? - Barbara
>

Mich hat das aber nicht so ganz überzeugt:

> It does indeed help, as I can now understand the motivation behind it. 
> But I must admit that I'm not really convinced.
>
> As a matter of fact, one of the things I like very much about RDA is 
> the way it caters for the needs of machines, e.g. by distinguishing 
> and specifying the various elements that can be encoded in MARC field 
> 300 $b. Whereas a human can interpret the diverse bits of information 
> in this subfield without problems, a machine cannot easily parse the 
> text string. Therefore, the different RDA elements in this area are 
> well justified.
>
> But the "work manifested" in a composite description seems to be a 
> different case altogether: In a way, it is like a hard-wired algorithm 
> - and, what's more, an algorithm that should be fairly easy to perform 
> for a computer programme. It would run like this:
> 1. check for a first creator; if present, take it
> 2. check for a uniform title; if present, take it
> 3. if there is no unifom title, take the title proper instead
> 4. if you've taken more than one data element, combine them
> and, voila, there you have the "work manifested".
>
> Actually, a very similar algorithm is used by the Primo software for 
> work clustering (which, I believe, is not done in advance, but rather 
> "on the fly").
>
> I can, of course, understand that not all current library systems 
> might be able to execute a routine like the one mentioned above. Then, 
> it might indeed come in handy to have the information a second time, 
> as it were, "spelled out" in one single data element for easy re-use. 
> But this would be a requirement of a certain technical implementation 
> of RDA, e.g. in a MARC environment. It should not, I believe, be a 
> requirement of RDA as such.
>
> So, I wonder: According to the assessment of the JCS, is it 
> _obligatory_ to have the "work manifested" in a composite description 
> as shown in the JSC examples? Or do the examples simply illustrate 
> _one_ possible way for the implementation of a composite description 
> among others, i.e. would it also be possible to implement RDA without 
> this data element, by catering for work clustering with an appropriate 
> algorithm?

Daraufhin hat Frau Tillett folgendermaßen geantwortet:

> I think if your local system can generate it the way you describe, 
> then you can say you are meeting the RDA core by having that 
> arrangement - bt

Also: Man muss nicht zwingend das Element "Work manifested" zusätzlich 
in einer Titelaufnahme haben, sofern man die Werk-Informationen mit 
anderen technischen Mitteln aus einer vermischten Titelaufnahme 
herausholen kann.

Viele Grüße
Heidrun Wiesenmüller


-- 
---------------------
Prof. Heidrun Wiesenmüller M.A.
Hochschule der Medien
Fakultät Information und Kommunikation
Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart
Tel. dienstl.: 0711/25706-188
Tel. Home Office: 0711/36565868
Fax. 0711/25706-300
www.hdm-stuttgart.de/bi