5JSC/Restricted/ALA Rep/1
May 22, 2007
page 1
TO:
Joint Steering Committee for Development of RDA
FROM:
John Attig, ALA representative to the JSC
SUBJECT:
Designations of Relationship
Background
In the RDA Project Plan B, I was charged to “prepare a starter list of relationship designations”
[B.2.10.2]. The following list was compiled from (a) the April 25 draft of Chapter 7, (b) the May
20 draft of the RDA Element Analysis, and (c) the May 20 RDA-DC Mapping. [The last two
documents, supplied by the RDA Editor, have not yet been distributed to the JSC.]
This document is focused on the list of designations (although in my appended comments, I do
raise some questions about the underlying taxonomy and the application of the designations).
Two views of the designations have been provided. The alphabetical list might be considered
as a draft for the appendix. However, the hierarchical list is probably a better working tool for
the JSC. It is based on the outline of Chapter 7, and shows candidate terms in context. The first
two levels in the hierarchy are all node labels, i.e., they are not actual designations. The third
level is a mixture of node labels and designations. The fourth level are all actual designations,
many of them based on lists of examples in Chapter 7 scope instructions; they are thus not
exhaustive lists and might be expanded further. In the hierarchical list, proposed designations
are underlined to distinguish them from node labels.
Definitions from Chapter 7 and DC-Lib equivalents have also been included in the hierarchical
list.
In a few cases, I have given alternative values for the same category; these are identified by
asterisks in the alphabetical list.
Following the two lists are some comments, questions, and issues for discussion.
ALPHABETICAL LIST
Abridged as
Abridgement of
Absorbed
Absorbed by
Abstract
Abstract of
Accompanied by
Accompanies
Adaptation of
Adapted as
Also issued as
Catalogue of
Commentary in
Commentary on
Commentary on
Concordance of
Contains*
Continuation of*
5JSC/Restricted/ALA Rep/1
May 22, 2007
page 2
Continued by*
Continues*
Critique of
Critiqued in
Critiqued in
Described in
Described in
Describes*
Description of*
Digest
Digest of
Dramatization of
Dramatized as
Embodied in*
Embodies*
Evaluated in
Evaluation of
Evaluation of
Exemplified by
Exemplifies
Expressed as*
Expresses*
Facsimile
Facsimile of
Free translation of
Freely translated as
Has [type of augmentation]
Has catalogue
Has concordance
Has continuation*
Has index
Has sequel
Has supplement
Has teacher’s guide
Imitated as
Imitation of
Includes*
Index to
Manifested as*
Manifests*
Merged with … to form …
Merger of
Musical arrangement
Musical arrangement of
Novelization of
Novelized as
Paraphrase of
Paraphrased as
Parodied as
Parody of
Part of
Realization of*
Realized through*
Reprint of
Reprinted as
Reproduced as
Reproduction of
Review of
Reviewed in
Revised as
Revision of
Screenplay
Screenplay based on
Separated from
Sequel to
Split into
Summary
Summary of
Superseded by
Supersedes
Supplement to
Teacher’s guide to
Transformation of
Transformed as
Translated as
Translation of
[Type of augmentation] of
5JSC/Restricted/ALA Rep/1
May 22, 2007
page 3
HIERARCHICAL LIST
Primary relationships [7.3]
Relationship between a work and an expression of the work [7.3.1]
Expressed as/Realized through
Expresses/Realization of
Relationship between a manifestation and a work or expression embodied
in the manifestation [7.3.2]
Manifests/Embodies
Manifested as/Embodied in
Relationship between an item and a manifestation exemplified by the item
[7.3.3]
Exemplified by
Exemplifies
Equivalence relationships [7.4]
A relationship between two manifestations embodying the same
expression of a work or between a manifestation and the
specific item reproduced by that manifestation. [7.4.0.1.1]
Equivalent manifestation [7.4.1]
A manifestation that embodies the same expression of a work
as the resource being described. [7.4.1.0.1]
Reproduced as
DC-lib: hasFormat
Reproductions (e.g., facsimiles, reprints, photocopies,
microform reproductions, digital reproductions, mirror sites,
etc.) of the resource being described. [7.4.1.0.2]
Facsimile
Reprinted as
Reproduction of
DC-lib: isFormat of
The original that the resource being described reproduces.
[7.4.1.0.2]
Facsimile of
Reprint of
Also issued as
A manifestation embodying the same expression of a work as
the resource being described issued in a different format (e.g.,
large print). [7.4.1.0.3]
5JSC/Restricted/ALA Rep/1
May 22, 2007
page 4
Equivalent item [7.4.2]
DC-lib: isFormatOf/hasFormat
A specific item reproduced by the resource being described.
[7.4.2.0.1]
Reproduced as
Facsimile
Reprinted as
Reproduction of
Facsimile of
Reprint of
Also issued as
Derivative relationships [7.5]
A relationship between a work or expression and a modification
based on that work or expression. [7.5.0.1.1]
Source work (or expression) [7.5.1]
DC-lib: isVersionOf
A work (or expression) used as the basis for the work (or
expression) in the resource being described. [7.5.1.0.1]
Summarization
Summary of
Abstract of
Digest of
Adaptation of
Dramatization of
Novelization of
Screenplay based on
Transformation of
Imitation of
Parody of
Abridgement of
Paraphrase of
Revision of
Translation of
Free translation of
Arrangement (music) of
Musical arrangement of
5JSC/Restricted/ALA Rep/1
May 22, 2007
page 5
Derivative work (or expression) [7.5.2]
DC-lib: isVersionOf
A work (or expression) that is a modification of the work (or
expression) embodied in the resource being described.
[7.5.2.0.1]
Summarization
Summary
Abstract
Digest
Adapted as
Dramatized as
Novelized as
Screenplay
Transformed as
Imitated as
Parodied as
Abridged as
Paraphrased as
Revised as
Translated as
Freely translated as
Arrangement (music)
Musical arrangement
Descriptive relationships [7.6]
A relationship between a work (or expression) that describes
another work, expression, manifestation, or item and the entity
that it describes. [7.6.0.1.1]
Described entity [7.6.1]
DC-lib: subject?
A work, expression, manifestation, or item described by the
work (or expression) embodied in the resource being described.
[7.6.1.0.1]
Describes/Description of
Critique of
Evaluation of
Review of
Commentary on
5JSC/Restricted/ALA Rep/1
May 22, 2007
page 6
Describing work (or expression) [7.6.2]
DC-lib:relation?
A work (or expression) that describes the work (or expression)
embodied in the resource being described, or that describes the
resource itself (i.e., as a manifestation or item). [7.6.2.0.1]
Described in
Critiqued in
Evaluated in
Reviewed in
Commentary in
Whole-part relationships [7.7]
A relationship between a work, expression, manifestation, or
item and a part of that work, expression, manifestation, or
item. [7.7.0.1.1]
Whole work (or expression) [7.7.1]
A larger work (or expression that the work (or expression)
embodied in the resource being described is part of.
[7.7.1.0.1]
Part of
DC-lib: isPartOf
Part of a work (or expression)
[7.7.3]
A discrete component of the larger work (or expression)
embodied in the resource being described. [7.7.3.0.1]
Includes/Contains
DC-lib: hasPart
Whole manifestation (or item) [7.7.4]
A larger manifestation (or item) that the resource being
described is part of. [7.7.4.0.1]
Part of
DC-lib: isPartOf
Part of a manifestation (or item) [7.7.5]
A discrete component of the larger resource being described.
[7.7.5.0.1]
Includes/Contains
DC-lib: hasPart
5JSC/Restricted/ALA Rep/1
May 22, 2007
page 7
Accompanying relationships [7.8]
A relationship between a work (or expression) and another
work (or expression) that augments or complements it, or
between a manifestation (or item) and another manifestation
(or item) that accompanies it. [7.8.0.1.1]
Augmenting work (or expression) [7.8.1]
DC-lib: requires?
A work (or expression) that augments or complements the
work (or expression) embodied in the resource being described.
[7.8.1.0.1]
Has supplement
Has concordance
Has index
Has catalogue
Has teacher’s guide
Has [type of augmentation]
Primary work (or expression) [7.8.2]
DC-lib: requires?
A work (or expression) that is augmented or complemented by
the work (or expression) embodied in the resource being
described. [7.8.2.0.1]
Supplement to
Concordance of
Index to
Catalogue of
Teacher’s guide to
[Type of augmentation] of
Accompanying manifestation (or item) [7.8.3]
A manifestation (or item) that accompanies the resource being
described. [7.8.3.0.1]
Accompanied by
DC-lib: relation?
Primary manifestation (or item) [*]
Accompanies
DC-lib: relation?
5JSC/Restricted/ALA Rep/1
May 22, 2007
page 8
Sequential relationships [7.9]
A relationship between a work or expression and another work
or expression that precedes or succeeds it. [7.9.0.1.1]
Preceding work (or expression) [7.9.1]
DC-lib: replaces?
A work (or expression) that precedes the work (or expression)
embodied in the resource being described. [7.9.1.0.1]
Sequel to
Continuation of/Continues
Supersedes
Absorbed
Merger of
Separated from
Succeeding work (or expression) [7.9.2]
DC-lib: isReplacedBy?
A work (or expression) that succeeds the work (or expression)
embodied in the resource being described. [7.9.2.0.1]
Has sequel
Has continuation/Continued by
Superseded by
Absorbed by
Merged with … to form …
Split into
Comments, questions, issues for discussion
Taxonomy
1. FRBR entities: In some cases, Chapter 7 gives separate categories for the FRBR entities;
in some cases, separate categories are given for work/expression and manifestation/item;
in other cases, no distinction is made. My sense is that, in most cases, the entities whose
relationship is being identified will be self-defining or that the relationship does not
depend on what FRBR entities are involved. It was possible, in most cases, to give
distinct designations for the categories found in Chapter 7. However, in at least one case
(Equivalent manifestation and Equivalent item), the designations are the same.
5JSC/Restricted/ALA Rep/1
May 22, 2007
page 9
2. Referencing conventions: The first version of the RDA Scope Analysis broke out the
referencing conventions as separate categories; the latest version does not. With some
qualification (see below), it seems that the use of specific designations is not affected by
the referencing convention chosen.
3. Missing category: In one version of the RDA Scope Analysis, the Editor included a
category [Primary manifestation (or item)] that does not appear in Chapter 7. This seems
to be necessary to parallel Primary work (or expression). Should this category be
included?
4. Reciprocal nature of relationships: Almost all the relationship categories are reciprocal
and, in most cases, both categories are given separately in Chapter 7. The major
exceptions are the Primary relationships, where Chapter 7 includes only the general type,
and the reciprocal sub-types are noted in the scope instructions (and have been given
separate designations in this list). Should the reciprocal nature of relationships be treated
consistently in the taxonomy?
Designations
5. Alternatives: In a number of cases, I have provided alternative terminology. Decisions
need to be made about which form is preferable. Might non-preferred terms be added to
the list in the Appendix as see references?
6. Syntax: Although I considered using the DC-Lib construction (e.g., Is abridgment of), it
seemed unnecessary to force all the designations to take the form of a verb phrase. Is the
mix of noun and verb phrases a problem? For verb phrases, the present tense is used,
except for some of the sequential relationships. Should this be made consistent?
7. Definitions: Note that almost all of the definitions provided are for node labels, not for
actual terms. Should the Appendix include definitions of all the designations? If so, what
source(s) should be consulted for definitions?
8. Incomplete lists: Many of the fourth-level designations are derived from lists of
examples in the Chapter 7 scope instructions. See, for example, the list of designations
under “Augmenting work (or expression)” [7.8.1], where I have included a place-holder
“Has [type of augmentation]”. How exhaustive should these lists be? Are there additional
designations that should be added?
9. Overlapping designations: There are some cases in which both a general designation
and various sub-types have been included in the list — for example, “Reproduction of” as
well as “Facsimile of” and “Reprint of”. This means that the categories are not mutually
exclusive; both a more general and a more specific designation might apply, and a
cataloguer might chose either. Is this a problem? If so, which categories should be
eliminated?
5JSC/Restricted/ALA Rep/1
May 22, 2007
page 10
Application
10. Referencing conventions 1: Consideration needs to be given to how Designations of
relationships are to be used in the case of Resource identifiers, Resource names, and
Resource descriptions [7.1]. In the first two cases, the Designation can be given as a
separate element related (by encoding?) to the identifier or name. In the case of a
description, however, this is less clear. Should the instructions for structured description
include provision for the designation as a separate element? Can an unstructured
description make use of the designation (or perhaps only the terminology)?
11. Referencing conventions 2: Some of the categories in Chapter 7 include a different list
of conventions: Linked records, Controlled access points, and Composite record. Again,
the designation (or a coded equivalent?) can be used in the first two cases — although
perhaps not in the same way (see next comment). It is less clear what role Designations
of relationship have in the case of a composite record.
12. Direction of the relationship: Because almost all of the relationships are reciprocal, it is
critical to know which direction the Designation needs to point. 7.2.0.1 states that the
Designation shows the relationship between the resource described and the referenced
resource. This works well for identifiers, descriptions, and links to related records.
However, in the case of controlled access points (e.g., 7.3.1.2), doesn’t the direction need
to be reversed? The access point points from the related resource named in the access
points to the resource being described; it works in exactly the opposite direction from the
other conventions. Doesn’t this need to be reflected in the instructions?
13. Coded equivalents: MARC 21 coding for relationship categories is inconsistent. In some
cases, it is inherent in the content designation (tag or indicator); in other cases, it is not.
There is no single list of categories; they are scattered throughout the formats. In its
discussion paper for MARBI, the question of coded equivalents for relationship
designations, as well as the potential need for an element for relationship terms, should be
raised.
14. Complex relationships: Some relationships involve more that two entities. For
example, a split or merger (Sequential relationships) involves at least three. How would
designations be applied? In the case of a split, perhaps the same relationship applied
separately to each entity: Title A split into Title B and Title A split into Title C. Mergers
are more difficult; the best solution I can think of is to separate two aspects of the
relationship: Title A merged with Title B and Title A merged into Title C and (in the
description of Title B) Title B merged with Title A and Title B merged into Title C. This
seems overly awkward. Can our syntax cover such complex relationships or are these
cases that can only be described in an unstructured way?
5JSC/Restricted/ALA Rep/1
May 22, 2007
page 11
15. Examples: Even if specific application guidance does not need to be included in either
the basic instructions (7.2) or in the Appendix, instructions will be needed by the
Examples Group for showing designations in examples illustrating the different
referencing conventions noted above.