5.1 Bibliographic Relationships in the Context of the Model
5.2 Relationships Depicted in the High Level Diagrams
5.3 Other Relationships Between Group 1 Entities
Various terms are used by creators and publishers of intellectual and artistic entities to signal relationships between those entities. Terms such as "edition" and "version" are frequently encountered on publications and other materials, as are statements such as "based on ..." or "translated from ...." In many cases such terms or statements serve as a signal to the cataloguer that a relationship should be reflected in the bibliographic record. The problem with relying on commonly applied terms as a starting point for analyzing bibliographic relationships is that those terms are neither clearly defined nor uniformly applied. In this study relationships are examined in the context of the entities defined for the model, i.e., they are analysed specifically as relationships that operate between one work and another, between one expression and another, between a manifestation and an item, etc.
In the context of the model, relationships serve as the vehicle for depicting the link between one entity and another, and thus as the means of assisting the user to "navigate" the universe that is represented in a bibliography, catalogue, or bibliographic database. Typically the user will formulate a search query using one or more attributes of the entity for which he or she is searching, and it is through the attribute that the user finds the entity sought. The relationships reflected in the bibliographic record provide additional information that assists the user in making connections between the entity found and other entities that are related to that entity.
Relationships may be reflected in bibliographic records in a number of ways. Some relationships, especially those depicted in the entity-relationship diagrams in Chapter 3 (Figures 3.1 through 3.3), are often reflected simply by concatenating attributes of one entity with attributes of the related entity in a single record. For example, a record will normally couple the attributes of a particular manifestation with the attributes of the expression that is embodied in that manifestation and with the attributes of the work that is realized through that expression. Relationships are also frequently reflected implicitly by appending to the record a heading identifying a related entity. The relationship of the work to the person or corporate body, for example, is normally reflected implicitly by appending to the record a heading identifying the person or corporate body responsible for the work. Relationships are sometimes reflected by "layering" attributes of one entity with those of related entities (e.g., in a multi-level record describing both an aggregate entity and its individual component entities). Relationships are also frequently made explicit through the use of a note or similar device that indicates not only that a relationship exists between the entity described in the record and another entity, but also states specifically the nature of the relationship (e.g., "Translated from the English text of the 1891 edition").
It is important to bear in mind that for the purposes of this study a relationship is not operative unless the entities on each side of the relationship are explicitly identified. For example, "based on a play by Henrik Ibsen" does not operatively state a work-to-work relationship; "based on Ghosts by Henrik Ibsen" does.
It is also important to note that within the entity-relationship model relationships can be depicted either at the level at which they actually operate, or at a more general level when the precise relationship cannot be easily determined. For example, a concordance to Joyce's Finnegans Wake in reality will have been based on a particular embodiment (i.e., manifestation) of a particular text (i.e., expression); it may not be possible, if the precise edition of the base text is unknown, to state the relationship of the concordance to the particular expression and/or manifestation on which it is based. In that case it is possible only to state the relationship of the concordance to Finnegans Wake (i.e., work). The model therefore provides an option for certain kinds of relationships to be expressed at either one of two levels.
The sections that follow describe the relationships used in the model and how they function.
Sections 5.2 through 5.2.3 describe the logical relationships between entity types that are shown on the high level entity-relationship diagrams in Chapter 3 (Figures 3.1 through 3.3). In the entity-relationship diagrams those relationships are shown simply to indicate how at a generalized level the entities are connected with one another (i.e., how works are connected with expressions, how they are connected with persons and corporate bodies, how they are connected with concepts, objects, events, etc.; how expressions are connected with manifestations, how they are connected with persons and corporate bodies; etc.). At a more specific level, the same relationships are used to link a particular expression with the work it realizes, a particular manifestation with the expression it embodies, etc.
Sections 5.3 through 5.3.6.1 describe another set of relationships associated with the four primary entities (work, expression, manifestation, and item) that operate more specifically between designated instances of entities (e.g., between one work and another, between two expressions of the same work, between an expression of one work and an expression of another work, etc.).
The entity-relationship diagrams in Chapter 3 (Figures 3.1 through 3.3) show logical relationships between entities at the highest level of generalization in the model. The relationships depicted in the diagrams indicate simply how at a logical level the different types of entities in the model are connected with one another (i.e., how works are connected with expressions, how they are connected with persons and corporate bodies, etc.). For example, the line labeled "realized through" that links work with expression indicates in generalized terms that a work is realized through an expression.
As noted in Chapter 3 (sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.3), the entities in the model fall into three groups. The primary group comprises the products of intellectual or artistic endeavour: work, expression, manifestation, and item. The second group comprises those entities responsible for the intellectual or artistic content, the production and dissemination, or the custodianship of such products: person and corporate body. The third group comprises an additional set of entities that together with the entities in the first and second groups may serve as the subject of a work: concept, object, event, and place.
The relationships depicted in Figure 3.1 that link work to expression, expression to manifestation, and manifestation to item are central to the structure of the entity-relationship model. Each of the three primary relationships (i.e., the "realized through" relationship connecting work and expression, the "embodied in" relationship connecting expression and manifestation, and the "exemplified by" relationship connecting manifestation and item) is unique and operates between only one pair of entities in the model. In all three cases, in fact, the relationships reflected in the link are integral to the definition of the entities involved in the relationship.
The first of those relationships indicates that a work is "realized through" expression. Viewed from the reverse direction, the relationship indicates that an expression "is a realization of" a work, which is in fact how expression is defined as an entity ("the intellectual or artistic realization of a work.... "). The logical connection between work and expression, as reflected in the model through the relationship link, serves as the basis both for identifying the work represented by an individual expression and for ensuring that all expressions of a work are linked to the work. Indirectly the relationships between a work and the various expressions of that work also serve to establish an implicit "sibling" relationship between the various expressions of the work.
Similarly, the relationship connecting expression with manifestation, indicating that an expression is "embodied in" a manifestation, or conversely that a manifestation is the embodiment of an expression, reflects the definition of manifestation ("the physical embodiment of the expression...."). In this case the logical connection serves as the basis both for identifying the expression of a work embodied in an individual manifestation and for ensuring that all manifestations of the same expression are linked back to that expression. Indirectly the relationships between an expression and the various manifestations of that expression also serve to establish an implicit "sibling" relationship between the various manifestations of the expression.
The same holds true for the "exemplified by" relationship that connects manifestation with item. Again, this is a unique relationship that is integral to the definition of item ("a single exemplar of a manifestation"). The logical connection serves as the basis both for identifying the manifestation exemplified by an individual item and for ensuring that all copies (i.e., items) of the same manifestation are linked to that manifestation. Indirectly the relationships between a manifestation and the various items exemplifying that manifestation also serve to establish an implicit "sibling" relationship between the various copies (i.e., items) of a manifestation.
It should be noted that although the relationships between work, expression, manifestation, and item are depicted in the entity-relationship diagram in a segmented way, they operate logically as a continuous chain. That is to say that the relationship from work to expression carries through to the relationship from expression to manifestation, and those two relationships subsequently carry through to the relationship from manifestation to item. Thus when a relationship is made between an expression and a manifestation that embodies the expression, the manifestation is at the same time logically linked to the work that is realized through the expression, given that the expression has been linked to the work it realizes.
The entities in the second group (person and corporate body) are linked to the first group by four relationship types: the "created by" relationship that links both person and corporate body to work; the "realized by" relationship that links the same two entities to expression; the "produced by" relationship that links them to manifestation; and the "owned by" relationship that links them to item.
The "created by" relationship may link a work to a person responsible for the creation of the intellectual or artistic content of the work; it may also link a work to a corporate body responsible for the work. The logical connection between a work and a related person or corporate body serves as the basis both for identifying the person or corporate body responsible for an individual work and for ensuring that all works by a particular person or corporate body are linked to that person or corporate body.
The "realized by" relationship may link an expression to a person or corporate body responsible for the realization of a work. It is similar in function to the "created by" relationship, but it implies a difference in the nature of the relationship that parallels the difference between work and expression as entities. A person or corporate body responsible for the intellectual or artistic content of a work is responsible for the conception of the work as an abstract entity; a person or corporate body responsible for the expression of the work is responsible for the specifics of the intellectual or artistic realization or execution of the expression. The logical connection between an expression and a related person or corporate body serves as the basis both for identifying the person or corporate body responsible for an individual expression and for ensuring that all expressions realized by a person or corporate body are linked to that person or corporate body.
The "produced by" relationship may link a manifestation to the person or corporate body responsible for publishing, distributing, fabricating or manufacturing the manifestation. The logical connection between a manifestation and a related person or corporate body could serve as the basis both for identifying the person or corporate body responsible for producing or disseminating a manifestation and for ensuring that all manifestations produced or disseminated by a person or corporate body are linked to that person or corporate body.
The "owned by" relationship may link an item to the person or corporate body that is the owner or custodian of the item. The logical connection between an item and a related person or corporate body could serve as the basis both for identifying the person or corporate body that owns or has custodianship of an item and for ensuring that all items owned by or in the custodianship of a particular person or corporate body are linked to that person or corporate body.
The entities in all three groups are connected to the work entity by a subject relationship. The "has as subject" relationship indicates that any of the entities in the model, including work itself, may be the subject of a work. Stated in slightly different terms, the relationship indicates that a work may be about a concept, an object, an event, or place; it may be about a person or corporate body; it may be about an expression, a manifestation, or an item; it may be about another work. The logical connection between a work and a related subject entity serves as the basis both for identifying the subject of an individual work and for ensuring that all works relevant to a given subject are linked to that subject.
Tables 5.1 through 5.11 give an overview of additional relationships between group 1 entities that were not depicted on the high level entity-relationship diagram in Figure 3.1. They identify the major types of relationships that operate between instances of the same entity type or between instances of different entity types, and they include examples of specific kinds of entities that are typically involved in each type of relationship, but they are not meant to be exhaustive. In order to facilitate the description of the relationships, specific relationships have been grouped into logical relationship types, and each group has been given a relationship type name. The primary goal of this study, however, is not to provide higher level groupings for relationships, but rather to describe the nature of bibliographic relationships by "deconstructing" conventional terms and categories, and to show how the relationships operate in the context of the four primary entities in the model (i.e., work, expression, manifestation, and item).
The tables (as illustrated below) are set up to show in the left-hand column the various types of relationships that operate between the entity types specified in the heading for each table (in this case manifestation-to-manifestation). For each relationship type there is a pair of relationship statements formulated as they would appear in an entity-relationship diagram. The first statement in the pair indicates the relationship as it would be drawn from the first entity to the second entity; the second indicates the reciprocal relationship as it would be drawn from the second entity to the first entity. The column to the right lists examples of the kinds of entities that would typically occupy the position of the second entity in each relationship type.
| Relationship Type | Manifestation |
|---|---|
Reproduction has a reproduction → |
Reproduction Microreproduction Macroreproduction Reprint Photo-offset reprint Facsimile |
In the table illustrated above, under the relationship type labeled as "reproduction," the first statement (has a reproduction →) indicates the relationship as it would be drawn from the first manifestation in the relationship to the second manifestation in the relationship. In this case the second manifestation would typically be one of the kinds of entities listed in the right-hand column (a microreproduction, reprint, facsimile, etc.). The reciprocal relationship statement (← is a reproduction of) indicates the relationship as it would be drawn from the second manifestation (i.e., from the microreproduction, reprint, facsimile, etc.) to the first manifestation (i.e., the manifestation that has been reproduced). Expanding on the notation that has been used in the examples to reflect the implicit relationships between a work, an expression, a manifestation, and an item, the relationship in the table above would be illustrated by example as follows:
In some tables there is only one column of examples; in others the entities have been divided into two categories (e.g., dependent and independent) and there are two columns of examples. The reasons for subdividing the examples in some instances into two categories, and the distinctions between the categories, are explained in the sections that follow.
Table 5.1 shows different kinds of work-to-work relationships.
| Relationship Type | Referential Work | Autonomous Work |
|---|---|---|
Successor has a successor → |
Sequel | Sequel Succeeding work |
Supplement has a supplement → |
Index Concordance Teacher's guide Gloss Supplement Appendix |
Supplement Appendix |
Complement has a complement → |
Cadenza Libretto Choreography Ending for unfinished work |
Incidental music Musical setting for a text Pendant |
Summarization has a summary → |
Digest Abstract |
|
Adaptation has adaptation → |
Adaptation |
|
Transformation has a transformation → |
Dramatization Novelization Versification Screenplay |
|
Imitation has an imitation → |
Parody Imitation Travesty |
A basic premise of the work-to-work relationship is that two different works have been recognized to exist; that is, the intellectual or artistic content of one work has been judged sufficiently different from the other to constitute a separate work.
Among the work-to-work relationships shown in Table 5.1 there are two categories: those involving a work that is referential in nature, and those involving autonomous works. A referential work is one that is so closely connected to the other work in the relationship that it has little value outside the context of that other work. An autonomous work is one that does not require reference to the other work in the relationship in order to be useful or understood.
The centre column in Table 5.1 labeled "referential work" shows the different kinds of works that will have little use or meaning without reference to the other work in the relationship. Within this category fall sequels that depend on the preceding work in order to be understood, indexes and concordances to a work, cadenzas, etc.
The right-hand column of Table 5.1 labeled "autonomous work" shows different kinds of works that have a relationship to another work, but which can be used and understood without reference to the other work. Within this category fall autonomous successors and supplements, as well as abstracts, adaptations, dramatizations, parodies, etc.
Three types of relationships cut across the referential and autonomous categories: successor, supplement, and complement. The successor type of relationship involves a kind of linear progression of content from one work to the other. In some cases, the content of the successor may be closely connected to the content of the preceding work, which would result in a work that is referential. In others, such as with loosely connected parts of a trilogy, the successor will be autonomous. Serial publications that result from the merger or split of their predecessors and stand on their own without requiring reference to the predecessor are also examples of autonomous works that fall within the successor relationship type.
The supplement relationship type involves works that are intended to be used in conjunction with another work. Some of these, such as indices, concordances, teachers' guides, glosses, and instruction manuals for electronic resources will be so closely associated with the content of the related work that they are useless without the other work. Such works are by definition referential. Supplements and appendices also frequently fall within the referential category, but if they can be used without reference to the related work they fall within the autonomous category.
The third relationship type, complement, involves works that are intended to be combined with or inserted into the related work. In other words, they are intended to be integrated in some way with the other work, but were not part of the original conception of that prior work. As with successors and supplements, some complements can be used or understood on their own without reference to another work (i.e., they are autonomous), others require an understanding of another work (i.e., they are referential).
Also in the autonomous category are groupings of four additional relationship types: summarization, adaptation, transformation, and imitation. The kinds of works represented in these groupings all involve the modification of an original work that is sufficient in degree to warrant their being considered as new works, rather than simply different expressions of the same work. Any work falling into one of these four groupings is by definition considered autonomous.
The significance of the distinction that has been made between works that fall within the referential category and those in the autonomous category becomes clear when evaluating the relative importance of reflecting relationships in a bibliographic record. In terms of the relative utility of work-to-work relationships, it would be most important to provide information about a relationship between a referential successor, supplement, or complement and the work to which it is related, since meaningful use of the successor, supplement, or complement is highly dependent on the content of the other work. On the other hand, with an autonomous work an understanding of the predecessor work, while useful, would not be indispensable to understanding or using the successor, supplement, or complement. The same holds true for summarizations, adaptations, transformations, and imitations. Consequently, for autonomous works making the relationship explicit in the bibliographic record is less critical.
It should be evident from the examples above that the terms applied by publishers often may not be sufficient to indicate clearly whether a work should be considered referential or autonomous. Works characterized as sequels, supplements, and appendices can fall under either category. The cataloguer must judge whether the work can be used only with reference to the related work or if it can be used and understood independently.
Table 5.2 shows whole/part relationships at the work level.
| Relationship Type | Dependent Part | Independent Part |
|---|---|---|
Whole/Part has part → |
Chapter, Section, Part, etc. Illustration for a text |
Monograph in a series Journal article Intellectual part of a multipart work |
Within the whole/part relationships there are two categories: those involving dependent parts, and those involving independent parts. Dependent parts are component parts of a work that are intended to be used in the context of the larger work and as such depend on the context provided by the larger work for much of their meaning. Dependent components are often difficult to identify without reference to the larger work as they generally do not have distinctive names/titles. Independent parts are those that do not depend to any significant extent on the context provided by the larger work for their meaning. Typically, independent components have distinctive names/titles. It is assumed that in both cases, the work that represents the whole is an independent work.
The dependent category can itself be divided into two subcategories: segmental parts; and systemic parts of the work's content. Segmental parts are discrete components of a work whose content exists as a distinct identifiable segment within a whole. Among discrete components of works would be included prefaces, chapters, sections, parts, and so on.
A systemic part of a work, on the other hand, cannot be viewed as a bounded segment of the content of the work. Rather, a systemic part is an integral aspect that extends across and is interwoven with the rest of the content of the work. Illustrations for a text or the cinematography of a film are examples of the integral aspect; they can be identified and discussed as intellectual or artistic parts of the whole, but do not represent separate sequential segments of the content as segmental components do.
There often will be no reason for a dependent part of a work to be separately identified or described in a bibliographic record. In certain instances, however, such as when a preface or introduction has been written by a well-known author who is not the author of the main text, it may be considered useful to identify and describe the component in its own right. Because dependent parts by definition need to be placed in the context of the larger work, the relationship, if formally articulated, is typically done by appending an added entry for the component to the record describing the larger work; alternatively, the relationship can be reflected less formally through a contents note.
Independent parts of a work are much more apt to be identified and described in their own right. The category includes monographs in a monographic series (where the series represents the whole); articles in a journal or issues of a journal (where the journal represents the whole); or independent intellectual components of a multipart work or kit, where that component can have value outside the context provided by the other components of the kit. The independent category also includes commonly recognized parts of larger works such as books of the Bible, etc.
Tables 5.3 and 5.4 show different kinds of expression-to-expression relationships.
Expression-to-expression relationships fall into two major divisions: those in which each expression involved in the relationship is an expression of the same work; and those in which each expression involved in the relationship is an expression of a different work.
| Between expressions of the same work | ||
| Relationship Type | Referential Expression | Autonomous Expression |
|---|---|---|
Abridgement has an abridgement → |
Abridgement Condensation Expurgation |
|
Revision has a revision → |
Revised edition Enlarged edition State (graphic) |
|
Translation has a translation → |
Literal translation Transcription (music) |
|
Arrangement (music) has an arrangement → |
Arrangement (music) | |
Relationships between expressions of the same work (Table 5.3) occur when one expression has been derived from another. In these types of relationships, one expression is seen to be a modification of the other. The modification may be a literal translation, in which the intent is to render the intellectual content of the previous expression as accurately as possible (note that free translations are treated in the model as new works); a revision, in which the intent is to alter or update the content of the prior expression, but without changing the content so much that it becomes a new work; an abridgement, in which some content of the previous expression is removed, but the result does not alter the content to the extent that it becomes a new work; or an arrangement of a musical composition. The expressions resulting from such modification are generally autonomous in nature (i.e., they do not normally require reference to the prior expression in order to be used or understood).
| Between expressions of different works | ||
| Relationship Type | Referential Expression | Autonomous Expression |
|---|---|---|
Successor has a successor → |
Sequel | Sequel Succeeding work |
Supplement has a supplement → |
Index Concordance Teacher's guide Gloss Supplement Appendix |
Supplement Appendix |
Complement has a complement → |
Cadenza Libretto Choreography Ending for unfinished work |
Incidental music Musical setting for a text Pendant |
Summarization has a summary → |
Digest Abstract |
|
Adaptation has adaptation → |
Adaptation |
|
Transformation has a transformation → |
Dramatization Novelization Screenplay |
|
Imitation has an imitation → |
Parody Imitation |
|
Expression-to-expression relationships, when they involve expressions of different works (Table 5.4) include the same relationship types that operate at the work-to-work level. Of the different types, successor, supplement, and complement relationships will be the ones most commonly stated at the expression level. For example, a note in a bibliographic record for a supplement might refer back to the specific edition (i.e., expression) of a preceding work that it was intended to supplement. It is important to bear in mind that the works represented by the expressions can be either referential or autonomous; judgments about the utility of the expression-to-expression relationship will be based on whether the work represented is referential or autonomous.
For summarizations, adaptations, transformations, and imitations, it is perhaps less common to state a relationship to a particular expression of a prior work. Nonetheless, it may be useful to state the relationship at that level when the information is readily at hand, e.g., "Adaptation by John Barton based on William Caxton's 1485 edition of the text."
| Relationship Type | Dependent Part | Independent Part |
|---|---|---|
Whole/Part has part → |
Table of contents, etc. Illustration for a text Amendment |
Monograph in a series Journal article Intellectual part of a multipart work |
Table 5.6 shows the kinds of relationships that can be drawn between an expression of one work and a different work.
The relationships are of the same general type as for work-to-work relationships; successor, supplement, and complement relationships will exist, as will summarization, adaptation, transformation, and imitation. In each case, however, the more specific level of expression is being related to the more general level of work. Drawing the relationship from the expression level to the work level is done quite commonly, most often because a specific expression-to-expression relationship cannot be readily determined. For example, it may be difficult to determine the specific text (i.e., expression) that was used as the basis for a dramatization or screenplay. In such cases the relationship is often expressed simply in the form of a note or added entry referring only to the related work rather than to a specific expression of that work.
As with work-to-work relationships, it will be the nature of the work that the expression represents that will determine the importance of reflecting the expression-to-work relationship in the bibliographic record. If the work represented by the expression is referential, then it will be more important to state its relationship to the other work; if the work is autonomous, stating the relationship is less critical.
| Relationship Type | Referential Expression | Autonomous Expression |
|---|---|---|
Successor has a successor → |
Sequel | Sequel Succeeding work |
Supplement has a supplement → |
Index Concordance Teacher's guide Gloss Supplement Appendix |
Supplement Appendix |
Complement has a complement → |
Cadenza Libretto Choreography Ending for unfinished work |
Incidental music Musical setting for a text Pendant |
Summarization has a summary → |
Digest Abstract |
|
Adaptation has adaptation → |
Adaptation |
|
Transformation has a transformation → |
Dramatization Novelization Screenplay |
|
Imitation has an imitation → |
Parody Imitation |
Table 5.7 shows manifestation-to-manifestation relationships.
| Relationship Type | Manifestation |
|---|---|
Reproduction has a reproduction → |
Reproduction Microreproduction Macroreproduction Reprint Photo-offset reprint Facsimile Mirror site |
Alternate has an alternate → |
Alternate format Simultaneously released edition |
Manifestation-to-manifestation relationships normally involve manifestations of the same expression.
The reproduction relationship may involve varying degrees of fidelity to a previous manifestation. Included in this category are various kinds of reproductions. Although in reality a microform reproduction is normally made from a specific copy (i.e., item) of the original manifestation, it is customary to view the relationship as being between the microform manifestation and the print manifestation represented by the actual copy that served as the basis for the microform. In this kind of reproduction, what is important is that the same intellectual or artistic content is represented in the subsequent manifestation; replicating the look and feel of the previous manifestation is not the intent. Reprints represent another situation in which the primary intent is to reissue the intellectual or artistic content; with reprints, it may be assumed that the reprint process will result in a manifestation that exhibits many of the same physical characteristics as the original, although this often is not the main objective. With facsimiles, it is the specific intent not only to preserve the same content, but also to preserve the look and feel of the earlier manifestation.
The alternate relationship involves manifestations that effectively serve as alternates for each other. The alternate relationship obtains, for example, when a publication, sound recording, video, etc. is issued in more than one format or when it is released simultaneously by different publishers in different countries.
Table 5.8 shows whole/part relationships at the manifestation level.
| Relationship Type | Manifestation |
|---|---|
Whole/Part has part → |
Volume of a multivolume manifestation Soundtrack for a film embedded in film |
Physical content as represented by manifestation can be divided in much the same way that intellectual content can be divided in the case of work and expression. A component at the manifestation level may be a discrete physical unit of the manifestation. Volume 2 of a three-volume set of War and Peace would be a manifestation component. Similarly an instruction manual accompanying a CD-ROM would be a manifestation component. A component of a manifestation may also be an integral part of the manifestation that is physically inseparable from the whole, such as the soundtrack of a film that is embedded in the film.
It is important to remember that manifestation, while representing intellectual content as it has been expressed in a physical form, is still an abstraction. Therefore the parts and relationships articulated at this level represent generalizations that would be true for all instances of the manifestation that had been produced, and do not represent the parts of a particular copy held by an institution, which would be components at the item level.
Table 5.9 shows manifestation-to-item relationships.
A manifestation-to-item relationship indicates that a given manifestation is the result of reproducing a particular item. The reproduction relationship will be stated at this level when it is useful to indicate the specific item used, as opposed to stating the relationship at the more general level of manifestation-to-manifestation.
| Relationship Type | Manifestation |
|---|---|
Reproduction has a reproduction → |
Reproduction Microreproduction Macroreproduction Reprint Photo-offset reprint Facsimile |
Table 5.10 shows two types of item-to-item relationships.
| Relationship Type | Item |
|---|---|
Reconfiguration has reconfiguration → |
Bound with Split into Extracted from |
Reproduction has a reproduction → |
Reproduction Microreproduction Macroreproduction Facsimile |
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.
The reconfiguration relationship is one in which one or more items are changed in such a way that a new item or items result. Most commonly, an item of one manifestation is bound with an item of a different manifestation to make a new item. For monographs, this is the typical "bound with" situation. For serials, reconfiguration happens when several unbound copies representing different issues are bound together to make a single new item. Less frequently, a single physical item may be split and rebound as two separate items.
Table 5.11 shows whole/part relationships at the item level.
| Relationship Type | Item |
|---|---|
Whole/Part has part → |
Physical component of copy Binding of a book |
Parts of items can be discrete components or integral parts. A discrete component is a separable physical piece constituting part of the whole item. For example, copy 1 of a particular manifestation might consist of two separate volumes; each of those volumes can participate in a whole/part relationship to the copy as a whole.
An integral part of an item is one that is normally considered to be physically inseparable from the item. The binding of a book, for example, would be considered an integral part. So might a record jacket or a CD-ROM case which, though in reality a separate physical piece, would not normally be viewed as a separate part.
