Additional Instructions in Chapter 27 for Structured Descriptions of the “Contained in” and “Container of” Relationships

CC:DA/TF/Instructions for Recording Relationships/9/Rev.
July 16, 2015

Additional Instructions in Chapter 27 for Structured Descriptions of the “Contained in” and “Container of” Relationships

Earlier proposal: Additional instructions in Chapter 27 for Structured Descriptions of the “Contained in” and “Container of” Relationships (06/06/2015)

 

Submitted by Nathan Putnam, Task Force to Investigate the Instructions for Recording Relationships in RDA

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Additional Instructions in Chapter 27 for Structured Descriptions of the “Contained in” and “Container of” Relationships

  1. Kathy Glennan says:

    In spite of some thoughts shared at the CC:DA meeting in San Francisco that RDA might really only have a two- or three-fold path to record relationships, instead of the current four (identifier, AAP, structured note, unstructured note), I think we should put forward this proposal with the four-fold path — since that’s the way RDA is currently structured.

  2. Kathy Glennan says:

    I like the TF’s solution to being able to record elements of the work or expression when providing a structured description of the related manifestation (27.1.1.3.2.c). While this is pragmatic, since it supports current practice, I also think it’s worded in a way to be principled.

  3. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    Some people had reservations about the approach outlined for contents notes as a “container of (manifestation)” relationship in January and June. I made a suggestion at ALA of quickly working up a barebones instruction in 2.17 that would accommodate contents notes as transcribed from publications, and I saw that Robert Bratton also seemed to support that (July 2, on the earlier version on the blog). Adding something like this may have prevented the proposal from going forward this time around, so I can understand why this course was not taken (and I’m sure there are other reasons having to do with the modelling). But I might like to see acknowledgment in the introductory text of the idea of Ch. 2 for transcribed contents notes mentioned as a possible strategy, for the JSC to think about, even if the body of the proposal stays the same.

  4. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    From Mark Scharff, Washington University, MLA member2:

    I see that the “Songs without works” typos got fixed. I’m not registered to see the discussion, so this might have already been resolved, but I wonder about the imprint in the “Resource described” portion of the last example for 27.1.1.3.2.2, e). Was the publisher rendered “EMI records” deliberately? And was a non-RDA date element chosen deliberately? That is, in RDA a phonogram copyright date cannot “stand in” for a publication date like it could in AACR2. If the intent was to present an AACR2-era example, then I think the publisher’s name would need to be capitalized.

Leave a Reply