7.4 Equivalence relationships
Always log in before editing a section.
7.4.0 General guidelines on recording equivalence relationships
7.4 appears to be dealing with two general classes of equivalence relationship: reproduction relationship (i.e., a relationship wherein one resource is a reproduction of the other resource), and other-format relationship (i.e., a relationship wherein two or more manifestations embody the same expression, and none of the manifestations is what we would typically regard as a reproduction of another manifestation). The former class would include microfilm and digital reproductions, print facsimiles, etc. The latter class would include resources such as regular print and large print editions; PDF and HTML versions of an electronic resource; DVD, HD DVD and Blu-Ray versions of a videorecording; etc. The problem in 7.4 is that the other-format relationship is handled entirely in 7.4.1, but the reproduction relationship appears to be split up between 7.4.1 (for the manifestation that reproduces another manifestation/item) and 7.4.2 (the item reproduced to create the manifestation described under 7.4.1). (The reproduction is treated only with respect to it being a manifestation; but the original resource is treated only with respect to it being an item, i.e. an exemplar of the original manifestation.) It would be better to get rid of 7.4.2, and move the examples into 7.4.1. In addition, each of the examples should include explanatory text, indicating exactly what is going on (e.g., the explanatory text under the second example in 22.214.171.124.1c.1 could be changed to read Partial description of the microfilm reproduction; resource being described is the original manifestation). In addition, the words manifestation and item should be replaced by resource; examples will guide the cataloger in learning to distinguish what kinds of situations need references at manifestation level or item level. Including manifestation and item in the text of the rules themselves makes for nit-pickiness and confusion, with no apparent benefit. Randall, ALCTS/CRS, 8/12/07
[126.96.36.199]: The definitions at 188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168, 22.214.171.124, and 126.96.36.199 are wordy and unnecessarily clumsy (see suggested revisions within the specific comments). They should all begin with the formulation: "An [insert Tillett terminology] relationship exists between …" Furthermore, I believe these definitions would each be enhanced by adding a second sentence that includes two or three examples. For 188.8.131.52, consider: "An equivalence relationship exists between the manifestations embodying a single expression of a work, or between the items exemplifying those manifestations." (Allgood, MARBI Rep., 7/31/2007)
Agree; I like Allgood's suggested revision above. In addition to creating clearer language overall, it removes the very puzzling phrase "between a manifestation and the specific item reproduced by that manifestation." Glennan 8/2/07
Statement of problem: Change of wording necessary. A manifestation does not reproduce itself. Solution: “An equivalence relationship is a relationship between two manifestations embodying the same expression of a work or between a manifestation and the specific item reproduced from that manifestation.” (Same change should be made at 184.108.40.206.1 on p. 7-14.) Knop for Schwartz, ATLA, 8/12/07
The second half of this (after "or ...") seems odd. A manifestation is in my opinion not “equivalent” to an item within that manifestation. “Manifestation” is an abstract concept representing the characteristics of all the items in the manifestation taken as a whole, i.e., what do they all have in common? “Manifestation” represents all of the items. It is not equivalent to one of the items in the manifestation. Manifestations within an expression have an equivalence relationship with each other since they share the intellectual content and are the same kind of entity, but I am a bit uneasy about saying that they have an equivalence relationship with the next level down in the FRBR hierarchy. Manifestation and item are not the same sort of entity. I could be wrong of course! I suppose one could say that an item within a manifestation has an equivalence relationship with other items in the manifestation. That is perhaps the relationship between those entities (the items) just as “equivalence” is the relationship between manifestations within an expression, and it might be helpful to point that out. It’s not clear to me why it is helpful (even if we grant the premise that a manifestation has an equivalence relationship with one of the items in the manifestation) to bring the manifestation-item relationship out as an equivalence relationship in RDA. The more important relationship—maybe the “real” relationship—between these entities is the “primary” FRBR relationship between a manifestation and its items, already brought out in 7.3.3. Maxwell 8/8/2007
220.127.116.11 Recording equivalence relationships
7.4.1 Equivalent manifestation
The English in the second bullet is somewhat muddy. The parenthetical phrase sounds like current LC practice, that is, the original is described, and the reproduction data is in a note. Is that what is meant here? Knop for Fieg, ATLA, 8/5/07
Perhaps I've missed something, but this and 18.104.22.168.1 seem to overlap somewhat. Also, the examples under 22.214.171.124.1c.1 and 126.96.36.199b.1 all have "Facsimile of: ..." What are the differences in these cases? Clarify the concept of "reproduction" under Equivalent manifestations and Equivalent item. Make changes to related rules if necessary. Suzuki for CC:AAM Task Force on RDA 8/5/07
Statement of problem: This rule is only one example of this problem phrase used throughout chapter 7. The phrase “the resource being described” is too lengthy. It makes the rules in this chapter sound more complicated then they really are. Solution: Drop “being described” and use just “the resource”. Knop for Schwartz, ATLA, 8/12/07
[188.8.131.52.3]: This instruction basically repeats 184.108.40.206.1. Perhaps: "Equivalent manifestations also include manifestations issued in different formats (e.g., large print, Braille, etc.)" – However, the microform and digital reproductions listed in 220.127.116.11.2 are also different formats. Is there anything really different at 18.104.22.168.3? That is, could we revise 22.214.171.124.2 to specifically incorporate the "different formats" phrase too? (Allgood, MARBI Rep., 7/31/2007)
Agree that we should merge 126.96.36.199.2 & 188.8.131.52.3. Glennan 8/2/07
I don’t see why 184.108.40.206.2 and 220.127.116.11.3 are separate sections. Is there a distinction between the types of reproductions listed in the two? A facsimile, microform reproduction, or digital reproduction is also a “resource issued in a different format.” Why not just combine the two? It could read “Equivalent manifestations include reproductions of the resource being described (e.g., facsimiles ...) and vice versa (i.e., the original …), as well as resources issued in different formats (e.g., large print). Maxwell 8/8/2007
This uses “large print” as an example of a manifestation “embodying the same expression of a work as the resource being described issued in a different format.” Where would audio versions of books fall into this? It might be helpful to include examples of different audio versions of the same book (cassette, compact disc, digital, etc.) as equivalent manifestations of a single “spoken word” expression? What about ones where the content is the same, but read by different authors as opposed to one where the content is not exactly equivalent (such as an audio dramatization)? This is an instance where it would be helpful to trace an example throughout the text of RDA. For example, if somewhere else in RDA the original book is shown, then here it could refer to that example number, or section, then show the manifestation for a large print and an (unabridged and abridged) audio version. Something like Gone with the Wind might be a good example – then it could even be followed thru the RDA text as the related work to the movie version (and even a broadcast version edit of the movie as an expression of the movie). At the end of RDA , all of these examples could be lined up for a quick reference example. If hyperlinked, clicking the link could bring you to the example page too. de Groat for OLAC, 8/8/07
Agree with merging. Also, I really like Greta's suggestion for following examples throughout the text of RDA. It would provide some narrative cohesion which is currently lacking :-). Smart 8/18/07
18.104.22.168 Referencing an equivalent manifestation
EXAMPLE: Is this naming the other version? It’s confusing because that’s the note we currently use to designate that the item in hand is the reproduction. In any case, if the same note is used for two different situations (even if one is made obsolete), it’s going to be very confusing. It is not clear which of these notes are intended to appear on the record for the reproduction being cataloged or on the record for the original source of the reproduction. For example, a facsimile is given as an example for both 22.214.171.124.1c1 and 126.96.36.199.1b1. Last year’s draft of the chapter that dealt with relationships (Chapter 6 at the time) was much clearer about which type of note to apply when the resource being described was the reproduction vs. when the resource described was the original source from which the reproduction was made. For instance, it said that if the resource described was a reproduction, the note would say “Facsimile of…” If the resource described was the source of a reproduction the note would say “Reproduced as…” or “Microfilm reproduction:…” Such explicit instructions are missing in the current revised chapter 7. It is unclear when to apply the examples listed in section 188.8.131.52b) and c). It is especially puzzling how section c) appears to include a mixture of examples that would appear on the record for the reproduction (“Facsimile of…”), as well as ones that would appear on the record for the original (“Reproduced as….”, “Microfilm reproduction…”). Perhaps there needs to be separate sections for when the reproduction is being described vs. when the source of the reproduction is being described, similar to how 7.5.1. and 7.5.2 deal with a “source work (or expression)” and “derivative work (or expression)” separately. de Groat for OLAC, 8/8/07
It might clarify the example to state that it would belong in the record for the original resource, not that for the reproduction. Peter F. for CONSER
Statement of problem: Example does not look like a controlled access point (this is hard to tell since we haven’t seen chapter 13). I think because we’re not use to seeing the designation of relationship. Solution: Change wording: “Name the equivalent manifestation including a designation of relationship following the general guidelines given under 7.1.4.” Knop for Schwartz, ATLA, 8/12/07
To avoid confusion, the label on the example should be: "Also available as an electronic reproduction:" Randall, ALCTS/CRS, 8/12/07
Agree on need to clarify which record this access point goes with (the original or the reproduction). Glennan 8/19/07
EXAMPLE. In the first example, even though access points are not the focus here, if the title in the note is different from the title in hand, would there be an added access point for A voyage of discovery to the North Pacific Ocean? In the last example, it is not clear whether the announced title is from the cylinder or from the digital transfer. Knop for Fieg, ATLA, 8/5/07
If it is assumed that the examples in this section belong in a record for a manifestation to describe the OTHER manifestation (which is also cataloged on a different record), the second example is problematic -- it looks like the note that is currently used in the record for the microfilm reproduction. If we understand this rule correctly, however, this note should go in the record for the print version to describe the other manifestation (i.e., the microfilm).
To complicate matters, the DLF Registry of Digital Masters Record Creation Guidelines now say to use a note "Also available as electronic reproduction" when using a single record approach. Some institutions have been adding a note to the print version record saying "Electronic reproduction" and this has been causing problems in OCLC because other catalogers from other institutions have been interpreting them as reproduction records and creating new duplicate records for the print version. As a result, the decision was made to use "Also available as electronic reproduction" when using the single record approach to help make it clear that the print version record is the one in hand. Although CONSER has decided not to use the single record approach for CONSER serials in the digital registry, there are lots of monograph records using the single record approach.
Even without this added complication, it could be confusing to have all of the old reproduction records which have the note "Microfilm reproduction" or "Electronic reproduction" and now a bunch of RDA records that have "Microfilm reproduction:" or "Electronic reproduction:" on the print version record describing the other manifestation. The only difference between the two notes is the colon at the end of the one that is describing the other manifestation.
Perhaps if the wording in the second example was changed to "Also available as microfilm reproduction:" it would be clearer that this describes the other manifestation. It would also be more consistent with the 4th example in 184.108.40.206.1c.1, "Also published in large print edition:" Peter F. for CONSER
To avoid confusion, the label on the 2nd example should be: "Also available as a microfilm reproduction:" Randall, ALCTS/CRS, 8/12/07
7.4.2 Equivalent item
Can a resource reproduce an item? Isn’t the item reproduced in the resource rather than by the resource being described? MANGAN 7/22/07
[220.127.116.11.1]: I don't know what this definition means. It needs significant revision. The "resource" being described" is incapable of reproducing a specific item, equivalent or otherwise. A reproduction may be made of the "resource being described" and that would represent an equivalent item, but the current RDA definition does not say that and is therefore confusing. By equivalent items is RDA trying to describe the relationship between an "original" item and a "reproduction" of it? If so, make this clear. (Allgood, MARBI Rep., 7/31/2007)
Count me in with those who are confused by this entire section. If I use a particular item (say a manuscript) to produce a facsimile, then I have a new manifestation which is related to the original item, right? However, I'm not sure this would truly be an "equivalent item". Agree with Allgood that this only appears to apply to reproductions and that clarification is needed. Glennan 8/2/07
Perhaps I've missed something, but this and 18.104.22.168.2 seem to overlap somewhat. Also, the examples under 22.214.171.124.1c.1 and 126.96.36.199b.1 all have "Facsimile of: ..." What are the differences in these cases? Clarify the concept of "reproduction" under Equivalent manifestations and Equivalent item. Make changes to related rules if necessary. Suzuki for CC:AAM Task Force on RDA 8/5/07
I don’t understand what this means. Does it mean an item within a specific manifestation? A “resource being described” doesn’t “reproduce” something. And what if the “resourced being described” is a work or an expression? As a general comment, the language “resource being described” continues to be used throughout RDA, which is fine, except it seems always to reference the quasi-manifestation records we’re doing now in MARC, even though this version of Chapter 7 explicitly brings out (and even encourages) separate descriptions for work, expression, manifestation, and item. Each of these could be a “resource being described.” Yet often (perhaps usually), as here, it apparently refers just to the manifestation record (or even a composite MARC record). This is probably something to look into. By the way, as another general comment, I noticethe scope sections consistently use the term being defined as part of the definition (here the word item “item”: “equivalent item” is an “item”…)—is that considered OK? Maxwell 8/8/2007
The scope statement in 188.8.131.52.1 is unclear: "An equivalent item is a specific item reproduced by the resource being described." The word "by" is problematic. Perhaps reword: "An equivalent item is a specific item reproduced as or from the resource being described in the same physical format." Or: "An equivalent item is a specific item that was reproduced (e.g. photographed, digitized) to make the resource being described."
If this is talking about manifestation to item relationships, maybe the scope section could include a separate sentence to indicate that. If it's a two-way relationship, will the reproduction manifestation be described on the record for the original item? If so, where are the instructions for doing that? Peter F. for CONSER, 8/9/2007
Statement of problem: The wording is confusing. Solution: Possible change: “An equivalent item is a specific item reproduced from the resource being described.” The wording for equivalence relationship in FRAD, p. 38-39 is a good example of wording that is clearer, more understandable, and provides excellent examples. Knop for Schwartz, ATLA, 8/12/07
184.108.40.206 Referencing an equivalent item
EXAMPLE. It is not clear how or why some of the examples would not also fit the “manifestation” guidelines for equivalence. Knop for Fieg, ATLA, 8/5/07
Some of the examples in this rule seem to be equivalent manifestations rather than equivalent items. Peter F. for CONSER, 8/9/2007
The explanation under the example says it is a "Resource identifier for the original of a photographic image that has been digitized by the Museum of History and Industry." Wouldn't this be an equivalent manifestation instead of an equivalent item since one is an original photograph and the other is a digital image? According to FRBR, section 5.3.6, Item-to-Item Relationships, p. 80, "The reproduction relationship states that one particular item has been derived in some way from another item. As with manifestation, there can be varying levels of fidelity of the reproduction to the original item. Unlike the replication of manifestations, however, which in some cases will result in a change in the type of carrier, the replication of one item from another always results in an item of the same physical characteristics as the original." Peter F. for CONSER, 8/9/2007
[EXAMPLE] Original letters in the collection of the Watkinson Library, Trinity College, Hartford, CT This is not an example of an “equivalent item”. It is not “a specific item reproduced by the resource being described” (if I understand the scope note in 220.127.116.11.1 correctly, which I admit I’m not sure about.) The original letters are not an item within the manifestation reproducing the letters. This example describes an equivalence relationship between manifestations, not between items. Maxwell 8/8/2007
If the first example in 18.104.22.168.1c.1 is in a record for photocopies of the original letters, it is probably an equivalent item, but if it is in a record for an electronic reproduction, wouldn't it be an equivalent manifestation rather than an equivalent item?
If the second example in 22.214.171.124.1c.1, "Electronic reproduction of the copy in the National Wetlands Research Center Library" is an electronic reproduction of a print resource, wouldn't it be an equivalent manifestation instead of equivalent item?
If the reproduction is a digital image that was made from a print resource, wouldn't that be an equivalent manifestation instead of equivalent item (according to FRBR 5.3.6)? If the reproduction results in a change in the type of carrier, then it's an equivalent manifestation instead of equivalent item? Peter F. for CONSER, 8/9/2007