RDA Appendix J revision proposal

Tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to RDA Appendix J revision proposal

  1. Peter Rolla says:

    When commenting please address the following questions: Do you support the overall proposal? Do you have changes to suggest regarding specific terms? Thanks!

  2. Peter Rolla says:

    From Adam Schiff:
    verse adaptation of (work) A work that has been adapted as a literary composition in verse form. Reciprocal relationship: basis for verse adaptation (work).
    I don’t believe this reciprocal is correct as proposed. As used in a record, the access point that would follow “basis for verse adaptation (work)” would be the work in verse, that is, the ADAPTED WORK, not the basis for the adaptation.

    Here’s a hypothetical example:
    Work described: Poet, Some Anonymous. Gone with the wind in verse.
    Relationship: Verse adaptation of (work): Mitchell, Margaret. Gone with the wind.

    Now the reciprocal situation is:
    Work described: Mitchell, Margaret. Gone with the wind.
    Relationship: Verse adaptation (work): Poet, Some Anonymous. Gone with the wind.

    If you substitute “Basis of verse adaptation (work)” for “Verse adaptation (work)” the second example doesn’t make any sense. The object of the relationship designator is the new adapted verse work, not the source work.

    I think the same problem I described with “basis for verse adaptation” applies to “basis for choreography (work)”.
    Work described: Jerome Robbin’s notated choreography for West Side story.
    Relationship: Choreography for (work): Bernstein, Leonard, 1918-1990. West Side story

    reciprocal:
    Work described: Bernstein, Leonard, 1918-1990. West Side story
    Relationship: Choreography (work): Robbins, Jerome. Jerome Robbin’s notated choreography for West Side story.

    Again, it doesn’t make sense to change “choreography (work)” to “basis for choreography (work)” based on what would be recorded with the relationship designator.

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      From email discussion Dec. 19, in response to Adam:

      I’ll jump in and say that we modeled “basis for verse adaptation” and “basis for choreography” on the already existing “basis for libretto,” and they should work the same way in introducing the access point for the derivative work.

      I’ll admit that I never loved “basis for libretto” because, out of context, it’s easy to misread as “The basis for the libretto described here is the following source work:” rather than “The source work described here is the basis for the following libretto:” which is how it is supposed to be used.

      So, the proposed “basis for verse adaptation” and “basis for choreography” should be read as “The source work described here is the basis for the following [verse adaptation, or choreography, respectively]:”

      If this is not agreeable, then “basis for libretto” should be revised instead, to “libretto,” so that all three can work the same way. Or, should all three just be made more explicit? Something like this?

      Serves as basis for [verse adaptation/choreography/libretto]

      Alternatively, something like this?

      • Adapted in verse as
      • Choreographed as
      • [A verb ending in “-ed”] as a libretto [because I don’t think “librettized” is a word]

  3. Kathy Glennan says:

    I would like to see us propose a solution to “basis for libretto (work)” as part of this work on Appendix J. I think it’s hard for anyone to tell the difference between “basis for libretto (work)” and “libretto based on (work)”. Perhaps “basis for libretto (work)” should become “set as libretto (work)”, although I’m open to other suggestions!

    • Tracey L. Snyder says:

      From email discussion Dec. 19:

      Choreography:

      Peter, isn’t the Don Quixote ballet comparable to Adam’s Handmaid’s Tale? I think Adam is on to something; we probably need sets of choreography RDs for both derivative relationships (Don Quixote and Handmaid’s Tale) and complementary relationships (Bernstein’s music and Robbins’ choreography).

      As for the complementary relationships, J.2.5 contains:

      incidental music (work) A musical work that provides the incidental music for a play or other spoken work for the stage. Reciprocal relationship: incidental music for (work)

      incidental music for (work) A work such as a play or other spoken work for the stage that uses the musical work as incidental music. Reciprocal relationship: incidental music (work)

      libretto (work) A work that provides the text of an opera or other work for the musical stage, or an oratorio. Reciprocal relationship: libretto for (work)

      libretto for (work) A musical work such as an opera or other work for the musical stage, or an oratorio, that uses the text of the related work as a libretto. Reciprocal relationship: libretto (work)

      Would “choreography” and “choreography for” fit in well here?

      As for the derivative stuff, I like Adam’s suggestions–“choreographic adaption of” and “adapted as a choreographic work.”

      Verse:

      I could be happy with “adapted in verse as,” or “versified as,” since that is technically correct and is no worse than “digested as.”

      Libretto:

      Kathy and I are having a side conversation about moving the pair of libretto derivative work RDs under the adaptations umbrella. Does this seem OK? They could be “adapted as a libretto” and “libretto based on.” How does that sound?

      • Tracey L. Snyder says:

        I think the above takes care of all of the problematic “basis” RDs, except for “basis for dubbed version,” “basis for musical variations,” and “basis for musical arrangement.” Let me see if I can come up with something for those.

      • Tracey L. Snyder says:

        I guess the reciprocal of “choreographic adaptation of” would have to be “adapted as choreography,” which can then be qualified by (work) or (expression).

        • Tracey L. Snyder says:

          J.2.2 under adaptation of (work)

          choreographic adaptation of (work) A work that has been adapted as choreography. Reciprocal relationship: adapted as choreography (work)

          J.2.2 under adapted as (work)

          adapted as choreography (work) A choreographic work based on the source work. Reciprocal relationship: choreographic adaptation of (work)

          J.3.2 under adaptation of (expression)

          choreographic adaptation of (expression) An expression of a work that has been adapted as choreography. Reciprocal relationship: adapted as choreography (expression)

          J.3.2. under adapted as (expression)

          adapted as choreography (expression) An expression of a choreographic work based on the source entity. Reciprocal relationship: choreographic adaptation of (expression)

          • Tracey L. Snyder says:

            And here’s my draft of new definitions for accompanying/complementary relationships for choreography & music (Bernstein & Robbins), with “complemented by” included only for the purpose of showing the hierarchy:

            J.2.5 under complemented by (work)—relocated from J.2.2 and redefined

            J.2.5 Accompanying Work Relationships

            complemented by (work) A work paired with another work without either work being considered to predominate.Reciprocal relationship: complemented by (work)

            choreography (work) A choreographic work that provides the choreography for a musical work. Reciprocal relationship: choreography for (work)

            choreography for (work) A musical work that uses the choreographic work as choreography. Reciprocal relationship: choreography (work)

            J.3.5 under complemented by (expression)—relocated from J.3.2 and redefined

            J.3.5 Accompanying Expression Relationships

            complemented by (expression) An expression of a work paired with another entity without either entity being considered to predominate. Reciprocal relationship: complemented by (expression)

            choreography (expression) An expression of a choreographic work that provides the choreography for a musical work. Reciprocal relationship: choreography for (expression)

            choreography for (expression) An expression of a musical work that uses the choreographic work as choreography. Reciprocal relationship: choreography (expression)

  4. John Hostage says:

    I haven’t had time to study the proposal in detail, but it seems to address a problem with all the relationship designators in RDA, namely, that you can’t always tell what direction the relationship is going in. In my very sketchy understanding of RDF, relationships are expressed by the predicate part of a triple, in other words: a verb. They would be much clearer if they said “has adaptation”, “is an adaptation of”, etc. But we still have the problem that the subject and object are widely separated in a MARC record.

  5. Tracey L. Snyder says:

    OK, here are the ones I’m still fussing over (derivative works and expressions):

    musical variations (work and expression levels)
    musical arrangement (expression only)
    dubbed version (expression only)

    Instead of adding “basis for” to the beginning (because we decided that’s confusing, and we are proposing to change the one existing RD that is like that), could we do this:

    varied as music (work and expression levels)
    arranged as music (expression only)
    dubbed version (expression only)–leave as is in Toolkit, because it doesn’t seem likely to cause confusion

    Any thoughts? Thanks!

Leave a Reply