Re: Question about MARCXML to Models transformation

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

>
> OK, Now I think I get it.
>
> Basically, I'm not sure you can extract an accurate Expression from most
> MARC records, especially since they themselves may be inaccurate. This one
> is especially interesting for transformations (and I'm not exactly sure what
> the cataloging rules would say). In most cases, the 100 field has the Work
> creator. In this case, the 100 field seems to have the creator of the
> adaptation, which MIGHT be considered an Expression, with this person as the
> author of the expression. How you would get that, accurately, out of the
> MARC data is beyond me.
>
> There is a uniform title which should connect to the Work title, but the
> authors would be different. It's quite possible that this MARC record is
> WRONG in how it has represented the Work. It's also possible that it's
> right, and all bets are off.
>
> This is an example of where MARC doesn't allow catalogers to say what RDA
> and FRBR want: there isn't a way to create a relationship between the M E &
> W. It may be inherent in the record (if you know how to read it) but it
> isn't there as data.
>

Ah, Karen, good point.  These wouldn't even map to the same Work, good eye.
So, while that *might* raise another flag, I'll let it slide, since that's
technically a teaching supplement or something.  But, good to know for
figuring out "related Works", perhaps.

So in the interest of the original question "Are these the same Expression",
let me add a few more examples:
Keep the original LC record - http://lccn.loc.gov/74194328

and add

http://mirlyn.lib.umich.edu/Record/002977718/Details#tabs

http://mirlyn.lib.umich.edu/Record/003253591/Details#tabs

http://mirlyn.lib.umich.edu/Record/005824032/Details#tabs

http://mirlyn.lib.umich.edu/Record/001424962/Details#tabs

http://mirlyn.lib.umich.edu/Record/002876189/Details#tabs (does the added
"Illustrator" entry change anything?)

http://mirlyn.lib.umich.edu/Record/004923703/Details#tabs (more 700 entries,
but with no relator subfields)

My question would be, given this seemingly not very edge case example, how
do we approach it?

-Ross.