Because the information concerning the individual items are not the same as what is put into the "manifestation" record. Everything can differ: title page transcription, paging. I didn't even get into the dates or multipart items when it really gets crazy.
It would seem that everything in the item records should share the same information in the manifestation record. I am sure that if you asked users, this is what they would think but it is definitely not true. The manifestation record is determined by certain definitions that not everyone shares, as we see, even LC and ALA differ. When we include the rest of the world, it's wild.
This is why I have concluded that the problem lies with the very existence of the manifestation record. It's a chimera. In the absence of a manifestation record, where should this information go (which describes the item): in the item record. I believe that many things simplify at that point.
In the card catalog, I agree that there was little choice except to create a "manifestation card," but I think there are other options with relational databases, and/or RDF displays.
Jim
> All this makes some sort of sense to me, but I don't see how this leads you to
> argue that the publication details should be in the item?
>
> Owen
>
> Owen Stephens
> Assistant Director: e-Strategy and Information Resources
> Imperial College London Library
> Imperial College London
> South Kensington
> London SW7 2AZ
>
>
> Tel: 020 7594 8829
> Email: o.stephens_at_imperial.ac.uk
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
> > [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Weinheimer Jim
> > Sent: 05 December 2007 08:58
> > To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
> > Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Martha Yee's cataloging rules fo
> >
> > Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
> >
> > > Manifestation is simply the entity that we have always
> > cataloged in a
> > > 'bib record'. I'm confused as to why you are claiming that
> > there are
> > > conceptual problems with manifestation, or that it's only a
> "virtual
> > > view" in a way different than the other entities. To me,
> > manifestation
> > > is instead the fundamental entity cataloging has traditionally been
> > > concerned with---to the contrary, I consider work and
> > expression to be
> > > essentially 'virtual views' of sets of manifestations, but
> > manifestation
> > > to be the fundamental entity. (And 'item' is something that
> > generally
> > > only rare-materials people are concerned
> > with----traditional cataloging
> > > has never been concerned with describing the item level, has it?)
> > >
> > > Are we understanding FRBR differently?
> >
> > In cataloging, there has always been a problem of whether you
> > catalog the intellectual aspect of an item, or the physical
> > aspect of an item. There have been several problems in this
> > regard, and technically, it is called "content vs. carrier"
> > Cataloging rules have almost always concentrated on carrier
> > and not so much with content. I don't want to speak for
> > Martha, but that is probably why she said that "we have to
> > believe the publishers" when it comes to edition statements.
> >
> > There are different states of a text that a book can go
> > through. I remember reading about one of Mark Twain's books
> > where he used "flickered" in a book, but during publication,
> > he changed this to "flittered." No difference in paging, no
> > difference in dates, or publication information, yet, if you
> > find one of the 10 or so exemplars with "flickered," you can
> > probably pay off your house. In library cataloging, we never
> > look this closely, but the public often thinks we work to
> > this level, or at least that we should. Therefore, I could
> > get a book with the same title, publication information,
> > paging, and series, and consider it to be a copy, while in
> > reality, the text itself might be quite different if not
> > completely different.
> >
> > How we determine a copy is based on LC Rule Interpretation
> > 1.0 (http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcri1_0.html) or now the
> > ALA publication "Differences between, changes within"
> > (http://www.ala.org/ala/alctscontent/alctspubsbucket/webpublic
> > ations/cataloging/newrecord/Differences07.pdf ).
> >
> > These give quite different guidelines for determining when
> > something is a copy or not. An example is: there is a record
> > with the same title, publication information, series, etc.,
> > but it has 351 pages and mine has 353 pages. Is this a copy
> > or a new edition? In LC terms, it is very definitely a new
> > edition and therefore gets a new record, p. 8:
> > "2) anything in the following areas or elements of areas
> > differs from one bibliographic record to
> > another: title and statement of responsibility area, edition
> > area, the extent statement of the physical
> > description area, and series area. (For an exception relating
> > to CIP items, see below.)"
> >
> > but in the ALA guidelines, it's quite the opposite:
> > "A5a. Extent of item (including specific material
> > designation). A different extent
> > of item, including the specific material designation,
> > indicating a significant difference
> > in extent or in the nature of the resource is MAJOR. Minor
> > variations due to
> > bracketed or estimated information are MINOR. Variation or
> > presence vs. absence of
> > preliminary paging is MINOR. Use of an equivalent
> > conventional term vs. a specific
> > material designation is MINOR. For example:
> > ⬢ 351 p. vs. 353 p. is MINOR"
> >
> > So, we have contradictory rules and we must decide which to
> > follow. As you see, if we follow the LC rule, we can conclude
> > that the physical items included in it have exactly 351
> > pages, but in the ALA guidelines, it's SOMEWHERE AROUND 351
> > pages. A big difference, especially when we are discussing
> > different expressions.
> >
> > Now, as far as I know, the copy with 351 pages and the one
> > with 353 pages may be the same expression, or almost, or
> > whatever. In fact, I don't know if it's the same with just a
> > couple of empty pages that got numbered or has some kind of
> > substantial revision.
> >
> > It is important to realize that this is only one tiny, little
> > point in determining the differences between content vs.
> > carrier, but cataloging is based on many of these tiny,
> > little points. When you include publication/printing dates,
> > variations in almost everything, sizes, movies, serials, etc.
> > etc. you can have all kinds of differences from one "copy" to
> > another. But I would suggest that very few people care if
> > Random Hourse or Blackwells or Wiley or Brill published a
> > certain work/expression--they are much more interested in the
> > expression itself, no matter who happened to publish it.
> >
> > One item may have:
> > WAR AND PEACE
> > LEO TOLSTOY
> > and another item is exactly the same with all publication
> > information, dates, paging, title and so on, but it has:
> > WAR AND PEACE
> > BY LEO TOLSTOY
> >
> > Is this the same item or not? Does the word "BY" make that
> > much of a difference? In some rules it makes a huge
> > difference, in others it is totally irrelevant. The examples
> > can go on and one. The reason why there is all this variation
> > is because we have to shoehorn everything into this
> > "manifestation" record.
> >
> > Now, multiply these differences by varying rules and
> > practices around the world (remember, the ALA/LC differences
> > are both based on AACR2 and ISBD!) but others around the
> > world are based on completely different rules, or they have
> > their own interpretations of ISBD.
> >
> > I may be nitpicking here, but I don't think I am. If I am
> > considering adding something to my collection and the record
> > says 351 pages, while my item has 354 pages, do I just decide
> > that it's a duplicate and discard it? If I decide to discard
> > it, is this the best for our users? Would my users be angry
> > if they found out what I am doing? If I have to get up, go
> > get the book and look at the individual item, then the very
> > purpose of putting in the paging becomes useless. If I follow
> > the ALA rules above, my catalog record doesn't even tell me
> > how many pages the items have in my collection.
> >
> > How does all this fit into the new formats? Yes,
> > manifestation describes what we have always done, but are
> > there possibilities of actually being more accurate by
> > measuring expressions with word counts and file compares
> > instead of the relatively inaccurate method of page numbers?
> > Will we forever be forced to describe the physical aspects of
> > a resource when people really want different expressions?
> >
> > Anyway, these are some of my concerns when we assume that the
> > publication information (describing the physical item)
> > determines the expression. I realize this is how it has been
> > done from the time of the card catalog and before, but it is
> > a practice that has always had problems and could be
> > reconsidered with better tools such as word counts, and file compares.
> >
> > Jim Weinheimer
> >
Received on Wed Dec 05 2007 - 05:05:58 EST